Petitioner's request to postpone trial denied; precedence of divorce claims established in determining related petitions.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petitioner sought directions against the Family Court to postpone trials in three ongoing cases while another related transfer petition was pending. Facts of the Case: The respondent-wife has filed for divorce and associated reliefs, while the petitioner seeks restitution of conjugal rights.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the pleas made by the petitioner due to the obvious procedural realities and thus denied the request.

Issues: The primary question centered on whether the petitioner could demand the trial postponement of prior cases while being stayed due to ongoing legal processes.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court underscored that the fate of the restitution plea depends significantly on the earlier filed divorce petition, emphasizing the procedural delays and the proper trial timelines.

Result: This Original Petition is consequently, dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks postponement of trial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. responses to previous petitions determine outcomes. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court denies intervention in trial procedures. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner seeks that the learned Family Court, Wayanad, be directed to ‘postpone’ the trial in O.P. (D)No.638/2022, O.P.No.155/2023 and M.C.No.61/2023 for a month; or till a decision is taken by this Court in Tr.P(C)No.66/2026.

2. To understand the facts clearly, we record that O.P. (D)No.638/2022, O.P.No.155/2023 and M.C.No.61/2023 were, admittedly, filed before the learned Family Court, Wayanad, by the respondent – wife seeking divorce, return of her patrimony and maintenance respectively; and while they were pending, it transpires that the petitioner filed O.P.No.2106/2025 before the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent.

3. The respondent, thereupon, filed Tr.P(C)No.66/2026 before this Court, seeking that the above mentioned O.P.No.2106/2025 be transferred from the learned Family Court, Kozhikode to that of Wayanad; and a learned Judge of this Court has issued Ext.P4 order of stay of further proceedings therein. It is in such scenario, that the petitioner has sought the aforesaid reliefs.

4. It is ex facie clear that no reasonable mind can ever accede to the plea now made by the learned counsel for the petitioner because, what he effectively says is that his client’s application for restitution of conjugal rights must also be heard along with the other three matters filed by him – admitting that they were all filed more than 2 or 3 years earlier – and further conceding that further proceedings were stayed by this Court in the Transfer Petition filed by the respondent.

5. The Original Petition filed by the petitioner, reflected in Ext.P4, before the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, seeks, as said above, restitution of conjugal rights; while, the respondent had nearly three years earlier filed O.P.(D)No.638/2022 seeking divorce. Obviously, the fate of the former will depend upon that of the latter.

6. In such circumstances, we see no reason to intervene in any manner whatsoever, particularly when it is admitted that the cases filed by the respondent – wife are now ripe for trial.

This Original Petition is consequently, dismissed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMDevan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJNEERAJ.M. – AppellantVersusSURANYA K.MOHAN – RespondentOP (FC) NO. 108 OF 2026 | M.C. 61/2023 | O.P(DIV) NO.638 OF 2022

Petitioner's request to postpone trial denied; precedence of divorce claims established in determining related petitions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
NEERAJ.M. – Appellant
Versus
SURANYA K.MOHAN – Respondent
OP (FC) NO. 108 OF 2026 | M.C. 61/2023 | O.P(DIV) NO.638 OF 2022