ABDUL SALAM Vs. SHIFANA JASMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C.No.20/2015 of Family Court, Ottappalam in which the respondents herein sought reliefs against the petitioner. Respondents are the children of the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein, in the objection contended that he is residing in a thatched shed and his living condition was very pathetic. To substantiate this contention, he filed CMP No.736/2017 in MC No.20/2015 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the house and to prepare a report. This was opposed by the respondents herein on various grounds. Objections were upheld by the Family Court by Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge in the present proceedings.

(2.) The reasoning of the court below is that the petitioner had produced three photographs of his house along with CD. That would help the court to see the house in which the petitioner was residing. The living condition and income can be proved by the oral testimony of the petitioner. Hence, the learned Judge held that an Advocate Commissioner need not be appointed in a matter in which the parties can prove facts by oral testimony. Hence, the prayer for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was declined.

(3.) Having regard to the prayer sought and the relief that is proposed to be granted, I am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents.