JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, Pala, in I.A.No.3/2025 in O.P.(IDA) No.505/2024, as being illegal and untenable.

2. Smt.Ann Susan George – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that her client applied to the learned Family Court to have the aforementioned Original Petition tried jointly with M.C.No.98/2025 – which he filed seeking maintenance for his child from the respondent; but that this has been rejected. She argued that this will cause irreparable prejudice to her client, since he is in charge of his autistic child.

3. We have gone through the order in question and incontestably – as is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner – the trial in O.P.(IDA) No.505/2024 has begun; while the proceedings in M.C.No.98/2025 is yet to begin. It is relevant that O.P.(IDA) No.505/2024 is filed by the respondent-wife seeking divorce from the petitioner; while M.C.No.98/2025 has been filed by the latter. Obviously, when the Maintenance Case is filed only in the year 2025, he cannot seek that it also be heard along with O.P.(IDA) No.505/2024, which was filed at an earlier time and which has been now proceeded