Priyanka vs Pradeepan

K.M. Joseph, J.—The Petitioner calls in question, the orders passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode, Exts.P6 and P7, and to set aside Exts.P6 and P7.

Briefly put the case of the Petitioner is as follows:

The Petitioner is the first Respondent in O.P.264/2005, filed by the Respondent, seeking a declaration that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent is null and void on the ground that the Petitioner is a mental patient and suppressing that fact, the consent of the Respondent was obtained.

The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized on 24.4.2004. According to the Petitioner, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment. The Family Court, by Ext.P2 order dated 28.5.2007, allowed the petition filed by the Respondent and the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was declared as null and void. The Petitioner filed Ext.P3 application to set aside the ex parte order and Ext.P4 application to condone the delay of 850 days. Ext.P5 objection was filed, wherein the Respondent pointed out that after a period of about one year of the decree passed in his favour, he got married on 26.5.2008. The applications filed by the Petitioner have been dismissed by Exts.P6 and P7. In Ext.P7, the Family Court has specifically noted that the Respondent has married one Sahija, on 26.5.2008 and a child is also born out of that wedlock.

We heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. C.P. Peethambaran, who pointed out that there were reasons why the Petitioner could not apply earlier and the matter involved is insanity.

We notice that a counter affidavit had been actually filed by the Petitioner and there is a delay of 850 days. More importantly, as correctly noted by the Family Court, on the basis of the ex parte decree, the Respondent has entered into a marriage with another lady and a child is also born to them.

At the first place, we must remind ourselves that we are called upon to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality committed by the Family Court. We are also persuaded by the fact in particular that the Respondent has contracted a marriage with another lady on the basis of the decree passed in his favour, after waiting for nearly one year, and a child is also born. Having regard to the totality of facts, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction and the Original Petition stands dismissed.

learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that some of her ornaments are with the Respondent. We are not called upon to decide the said issue.