PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. SINDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the Family Court.

(2.) THE petitioner had gone before the Family Court with Ext.P1 application for a decree dissolving the marriage under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Matrimonial cruelty is alleged. Inter alia it is contended in such petition that respondent/wife has been resisting sexual relationship and this amounts to cruelty. Before the Family Court, proceedings continued. The learned Judge of the Family Court, invoking his powers under Section 12, referred the respondent to a medical board. Medical Board conducted psychiatric as well as gynecological examination and evaluation. It was opined that the respondent does not suffer from any psychological ailment as is evident from Ext.P2. On gynecological examination it was found that the lady had polycystic ovarian disease. According to the petitioner, this would broadly support his allegation that the respondent was guilty of cruelty (in the sense that she resisted physical relationship) is correct and true. He, therefore, wanted the gynecologist, who is responsible for issue of Ext.P2, to be examined before court. That application was resisted. The learned Judge, by the impugned order Ext.P5, turned down the prayer of the petitioner for permission to examine the said expert.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this approach made by the court below is totally incorrect and unsustainable. The assistance of medical expert sought under Section 12 cannot be reckoned as counseling for which alone the protection under Rule 29 of the Family Courts Kerala Rules would apply. The learned counsel submits that, in any view of the matter, tangible evidence which was available before court in a report submitted by the medical expert, to whom respondent was referred under Section 12, cannot be shut out and the opportunity of the petitioner to adduce such evidence cannot be denied.