The court emphasized that a witness's relevance must be clearly identified for their examination to be allowed.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Exts.P6 and P8 orders of the learned Family Court, Kannur, because it has declined his request to allow examination of the witness cited in Ext.P5 list of witnesses.

2. Sri.K.M.Jamaludheen – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that, his client has specified in paragraph eight of Ext.P1 Original Petition – which he had filed seeking divorce from the respondent – that “the petitioner’s son’s friend who was there had wiped off the tea from the body of the petitioner and consoled him.” (sic). He argued that the said person is the one who is mentioned in Ext.P5; and hence that the learned Court ought not to have dismissed his plea, to summon him as a witness.

3. We are afraid that we cannot find any favour with the afore submission because, as has been rightly held by the learned Family Court in Ext. P6, the list of witnesses does not mention why the person is being summoned as a witness, or what his role is. This is without contest.

4. The petitioner, thereupon, is seen to have filed RP No.2/2025, seeking that Ext.P6 order be reviewed; which has also been dismissed, culminating in Ext.P8 order. In this order, the learned Family Court has refused to review its earlier order, saying that the name of the person sought to be shown as the witness has not been mentioned anywhere in paragraph eight of Ext.P1, contrary to the present submissions of the petitioner.

5. We find agreement with the view of the learned Family Court because, the impugned orders also record that the trial has begun, with the examination of witnesses progressing. The petitioner has filed an application citing a witness without mentioning any relevance, or purpose; and obviously, the learned Court could have done nothing more than to have dismissed it.

6. Of course, if the petitioner has any further liberties in law, they would not be precluded by either the impugned orders, or our observations herein.

This Original Petition is thus dismissed.

Sd/-