The court determined that witness testimony regarding financial transactions is critical for the proper resolution of family disputes.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges the order of the learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in IA No.3/2025 in OP No.2080/2018, since it has rejected her plea for summoning witness Nos.1, 2 and 3, in the list of witnesses she has furnished; however, granting permission to summon witness Nos.4 and 5 therein.

2. Sri.Gyothish Chandran – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client has raised several contentions in her defence before the learned Family Court; and that it involves certain bank transactions, as also the transfer of her vehicle. He argued that in such circumstances, the witnesses who have been summoned - namely the Officers of the Banks and the Authorities concerned of the Regional Transport Authority - become necessary to be examined. He contended that, however, the learned Family Court did not understand this in its proper perspective and has dismissed his client’s application in a mechanical manner. He prayed that, consequently, this Original Petition be allowed.

3. We notice from the files that, even though service of summons on the respondent is complete, he has chosen neither to be present in person, nor to be represented through counsel. In fact, we had considered this matter on 05.12.2025, when also the same situation was noticed. We are, therefore, constrained to dispose of this matter in his absence.

4. As correctly argued by Sri.Gyothish Chandran, the petitioner moved the application to summon five witnesses - the first three of them being the Officers of two Banks and an Officer from the Regional Transport Officer. She says she did this because she requires to summon certified copies of the ledger extracts relating to the home loan and savings bank accounts, including its repayment history and outstanding balance; as also the details of the transfer of a vehicle bearing No.KL-20-F-9067 - which is a subject in controversy between the parties.

5. We see that the learned Family Court has concluded that the examination of the Branch Mangers and the Officer of the Transport Department is not necessary; though without citing any reason.

6. However, when we go through the totality of the circumstances presented, we are constrained to take a different view. This is because, when the petitioner asserts that the ledger copies and extracts of details from the Banks concerned are necessary for her to prove her case, their officers need to be summoned; and this is the same situation with respect to the transfer details of the vehicles. Whether these documents or the testimonies are relevant to the case of the petitioner and whether they obtain probative value, are aspects that the learned Family Court will have to consider; and we certainly will not stand in the way of its examination in its proper perspective.

In the afore circumstances, we allow this Original Petition and set aside the order in question, to the extent to which it has disallowed the summoning of witness Nos.1,2 and 3 in the list of witnesses furnished by the petitioner along with IA No.3/2025 in OP No.2080/2018.

Consequently, the learned Family Court will allow the petitioner to summon and examine the witnesses above mentioned and proceed to dispose of the matter as per law without any avoidable delay; however, after giving necessary opportunities to the opposite side also.