The court reinforced the principle that parties must have the opportunity to fully engage with proceedings before final decisions are made in family law cases.

J U D G M E N T

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J:

The petitioner is seeking a direction to the Family Court, Ernakulam to allow Exts.P7, P10 & P11 interim applications, filed before that court in OP 127/2011, OP 138/2011 & OP 2363/2010 respectively. OP 2363/2010 was filed by the petitioner seeking dissolution of the marriage existing with the respondent. He had also filed OP 138/2011 seeking partition of certain immovable properties purchased in the joint name of both the parties. The respondent herein had filed OP 127/2011 seeking return of gold ornaments. During pendency of the above said 3 cases, the petitioner had approached this court in OP (FC) No.504/2014 seeking an early disposal of all the cases. By virtue of Ext.P4 judgment this court directed the Family Court to dispose of OP 2363/2010 and OP 138/2011 within a period of 4 months from 13-01-2015. It is stated that, by virtue of Ext.P6 order, the time limit stipulated was extended for a further period of 4 months from 22-06-2015. It is admitted that all the 3 cases were tried together before the Family court and evidence of the petitioner was completed in 2 cases on 29-04-2015. The cases were adjourned thereafter for recording evidence of the respondent. According to the petitioner the respondent filed proof affidavit on 07-05-2015. Eventhough the petitioner sought for an adjournment for cross-examining the respondent, the Family Court had posted the case to 08-05- 2015. The petitioner thereupon approached this court again in OP (FC) No.195/2015 and an interim stay was granted in that case. In the meanwhile the time limit was extended and the cases were re-opened for adducing further evidence. According to the petitioner he had adduced evidence only in 2 cases based on a wrong impression that joint trial was ordered only in those 2 cases. When it was realized that the Family Court has ordered joint trial of all the 3 cases, it was realized that the petitioner had not adduced any evidence in OP 127/2011. Hence Ext.P7 interim application was filed seeking to re-open the evidence in OP 127/2011.

2. So also the petitioner had filed Ext.P10 application as IA 3385/2015 in OP 138/2011 seeking to re- open evidence for examination of the vendor of the property. The petitioner had also filed Ext.P11 application as IA 3384/2015 in OP 2363/2010 seeking amendment of the original petition by adding more prayers to the effect of seeking declaration of the marriage as null and void.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that on 18-08-2015 when the Family Court considered Exts.P7, P10 & P11 applications, the learned Judge expressed the view that those applications could not be considered since the time limit stipulated by this court will expire on 22-10-2015. Without considering those applications the cases were posted for final hearing on 21-08-2015. Under such circumstances the petitioner is approaching this court seeking for a direction as mentioned above.

4. When the case is taken up for consideration on today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner conceded that Exts.P7, P10 & P11 applications were already dismissed by the Family Court on 21-08-2015. It was also pointed out that by virtue of Ext.P6 order this court had extended the time limit till 22-10-2015 and therefore the court below ought to have considered those applications on merits. It is further mentioned that the cases were adjourned before the Family Court to today, for final hearing. Apprehension expressed is that the Family Court may dispose of the cases even without providing the petitioner any opportunity of challenging the orders passed in Exts.P7, P10 & P11 applications. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already applied for copies of the orders passed in the above said I.As. According to him those orders can be challenged in appropriate proceedings. But his apprehension is about disposal of the OPs even before such steps are taken.

5. Considering the issue agitated as mentioned as above we a