MUHAMMED BHUKARI S/O SAIDALAVI HAJI THAYYIL HOUSE ATHAVANAD (PO) TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Vs. SAJEERA P. D/O P. MOHAMOOD GREEN MAHAL HOUSE KUTTIPPURAM (P O) TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the husband of the respondent. The petitioner calls in question Exts.P7 and P8, which are orders passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in I.A.Nos.2496/11 and 2497/11. The respondent filed O.P.968/10 before the Family Court, Malappuram, seeking dissolution of marriage. Ext.P2 is the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner came across a newspaper advertisement published by the respondent on 4.10.2011. It was a "Fask" pronouncement published by her stating that the petitioner herein is not looking after her affairs. Ext.P3 purports to be the newspaper publication. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 application to reopen evidence and to examine the respondent to prove the paper publication. That was allowed and the respondent was again examined. It is the case of the petitioner that during cross -examination, the respondent disputed the address given by her in the newspaper publication and contended that the publication was not given by her. She contended that she is 'Shajira P , D/o.Mahamood, Green Mahal, Kuttippuram' and not 'Sajeera P , D/o.Muhammad, Palliyalil house, Kuttippuram'. The evidence was closed on 13.12.2011. It was also then noticed by the petitioner herein that the address given by the respondent in Ext.P3 is the same as the address given in the marriage certificate. On the same day, i.e., 13.12.2011, the petitioner filed an application to reopen the evidence and to summon the Secretary of Najath Islam Sabha Palli Committee, Kuttippuram and to produce the marriage certificate of the petitioner with the respondent. Ext.P5 is the application to reopen the evidence. Ext.P6 is the copy of I.A.2497/11. Exts.P7 and P8 are the orders dismissing the said applications. In Ext.P7, the reasons given are that it was highly belated and the reasons given for reopening are not sufficient. Ext.P8 is an order passed in the light of Ext.P7.

(2.) WE heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner would point out that on 13.12.2011 itself, the I.A. was filed. Therefore, it cannot be said to be belated. Learned counsel for the respondent also does not dispute that it is not highly belated. He would submit that he is prepared to produce copy of the marriage certificate. Petitioner would submit that petitioner may be permitted to examine the witness, which he can do within the shortest possible time and the matter can be disposed of. In such circumstances, we allow the Original Petition (Family Court) and set aside Exts.P7 and P8. We allow the petitioner to examine the Secretary of Najath Islam Sabha Palli Committee, Kuttippuram, whom the petitioner offers to produce, along with the concerned documents. We direct the Family Court to call O.P.968/10 on 26.3.2012, permit the petitioner to examine the Secretary of Najath Islam Sabha Palli Committee, Kuttippuram and to produce documents which he refers to and thereafter, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the same at the earliest.