JUDGMENT

Ajithkumar, J.

This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging legality and correctness of Exts.P13 and P14 orders of the Family Court, Thalassery.

2. Ext.P13 is a common order dated 10.02.2022 in I.A.Nos.6, 8 and 9 of 2021 in O.P.No.941 of 2019 of the Family Court, Thalassery. That O.P was filed by the petitioner seeking an order for restitution of conjugal rights. Those I.As were filed for recalling RW1 and RW2, to reopen evidence and to issue notice to RW2, through the Superintendent of Police.

3. The purpose for reopening and recalling of RW1 and RW2 is to prove contents of a pen drive that was produced by the petitioner along with I.A.No. 4 of 2021 saying that it contained a telephonic conversation between the petitioner, who was examined as RW1, and RW2. The respondent objected to the said applications by filing separate objections, but with similar contentions. The applications were objected on the ground that evidence of RW2 with reference to the so-called telephonic conversation has no relevance or required for the purpose of disposal of O.P.No.941 of 2019, especially in the wake of pronouncement of 'Khula', by the respondent whereby the divorce has come into effect. Exts.P7, P11 and P12 are the copies of I.A.Nos.6, 8 and 9 of 2021. Objections filed by the respondent to Ext.P7 interlocutory application is Ext.P8.

4. I.A.No.7 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.941 of 2019 to receive two documents. Ext.P9 is a copy of the said interlocutory application. Ext.P10 is the objection filed by the respondent to that application. As per Ext.P14 order, I.A.No.7 of 2021 was allowed except in respect of pen-drive. In fact, two documents produced as per this petition are copies of a notice and a reply. Those documents were ordered to be received in evidence. No pen drive was seen produced as per this petition. A pend-rive produced along with I.A.No.4 of 2021 was seen received on file. Hence, there is no scope for a challenge to Ext. P14 which is the order in I.A No.7 of 2021, despite the order says that the petition was allowed except in respect of the pen drive.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that conversation between the petitioner and RW2 was regarding a possible settlement of the dispute pertaining to the marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. It is urged that in the conversation reluctance of the respondent even to participate in mediation talks has been reflected and the said evidence is very much relevant and required for a just decision in O.P.No.941 of 2019. In such circumstances, Exts.P13 and P14 orders are sought to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the said evidence is not relevant in the nature of the matter in issue involved in O.P.No.941 of 2019. RW2 is a witness of the petitioner. While examined in court, he turned hostile to the petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be served by recalling him. The learned counsel for the respondent also would submit that after pronouncement of 'Khula', there is absolutely no relevance for bringing in evidence proposed to be adduced through RW2.

7. O.P.No.941 of 2019 was filed for restitution of conjugal rights. Entire evidence in that case has been recorded. It was at that stage the petitioner filed Exts.P7, P9, P10 and P11 applications. The specific purpose for which RW2 is sought to be recalled is that the recorded telephonic conversation between the petitioner and RW2 has to be proved. The said pen-drive along with a certification under Section 65B of Evidence Act, 1872 has been produced in court.

8. It is seen that while examined RW2 in court, he did not support the case of the petitioner. Now, the conversation between the petitioner and RW2 recorded and fed to the pen- drive is sought to be proved, for which further examination of both RW1, the petitioner and RW2 is contemplated. Whil