IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN MONDAY,THE2D DAY OF DECEMBER201311TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 OP (FC).No. 4175 of 2013 (R) ----------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED1111/2013 IN IA19782013 IN OP9322012 OF THE FAMILY COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA) PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SIJA D/O.SYAMASUNDARAN, RESIDING AT SIJA NIVAS, M./K ROAD IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- VINOD S/O. INDIRA, ASWATHY NIVAS, CHEROOR DESOM PARINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN BY ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN BY ADV. SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN BY ADV. SRI.SEBIN THOMAS THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0212- 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (FC).No. 4175 of 2013 (R) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF OP9322013 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT IRINJALAKUDA DT. 27-3-2009. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OFOBJECTION DT710-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MEDICAL REPORT. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL LIST OF WITNESS DT. 7-10-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP9322013. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WITNESS, DATED NIL, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP9322013. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF PETITION IA19782013 DT1111/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OPO9322013, ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT,IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF ORDER
DATED1111-2013 IN IA19782013 IN OP9322013 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF OP TICKET OF THE PETITIONER DT2712/10. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT LIST PRODUCED BY PETITIONER DATED241/2011. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT,IRINJALAKUDA DT2911.13. //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ.
======================== O.P(FC) No. 4175 OF2013======================= Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2013
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband. She filed OP No.932/2012 before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda seeking dissolution of marriage alleging total incapacity on the part of the respondent to have sexual intercourse with her and further on the ground of physical incapacity to have such intercourse. In the said OP, petitioner filed IA No.1978/13 to conduct trial of the OP in camera. In that IA, the Family Court passed Ext.P6 order directing that the petitioner's evidence will be recorded by in camera proceedings. It is aggrieved by this order, the present OP has been filed.
3. Having regard to the nature of the ground urged, it is likely that questions invading the privacy of the parties are likely to be asked and therefore, it is essential that in order to avoid embarrassment of all parties, the proceedings should be OP(FC) No.4175/13 :
2. : conducted by in camera proceedings. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the Family Court itself has allowed the petitioner's examination by in camera proceedings, that will take care of the prejudice that is apprehended by the petitioner. According to the counsel, in such circumstances, it is unnecessary to interfere with Ext.P6.
4. The parties herein are Hindus and are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for conduct of the proceedings thereunder in camera and also places restrictions on printing and publication of the orders passed by the Courts. This Section reads thus; 22. Proceedings to be in camera and may not be printed or published.- (1) Every proceeding under this Act shall be conducted in camera and it shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any such proceeding except a judgment of the High Court or of the Supreme court printed or published with the previous permission of the Court. (2) If any person prints or publishes any matter in contravention of the provisions contained in sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees." OP(FC) No.4175/13 :
3. : Reading of the above provision shows that it is mandatory in terms and the Courts enforcing the provisions of the Act are bound to conduct every proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act in camera. 5.Section 11 of the Family Courts Act also contains almost a similar provision and this section reads thus; "11. Proceedings to be held in camera - In every suit or proceedings to which this Act applies, the proceedings may be held in camera if the Family Court so desires and shall be so held if either party so desires." 6. This provision makes it clear that in every suit and every proceedings governed by the Family Courts Act, if the Court so desires, proceedings may be held in camera and shall be held in camera if either party so desires. Therefore Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act places a mandatory duty on the Family Court to conduct proceedings under the said Act in camera, whereas Section 11 of the Family Courts Act provides that if either party to a proceeding under the Act so desires, the proceedings shall be held in camera. 7.In so far as this case is concerned, petitioner, one of the party to the proceedings, has filed IA No.1978/13, requesting the OP(FC) No.4175/13 :
4. : Family Court to conduct the proceedings in camera. Once such a request has been made, we are of the view that the Family Court is under obligation both under Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act to conduct proceedings in the OP in camera. Therefore, there was no justification for restricting such in camera proceedings only to the petitioner's evidence and we cannot approve that view taken by the Family Court. 8.Therefore, we set aside Ext.P6 order passed by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda in IA No.1978/13. The IA will stand allowed. The Family Court, Irinjalakuda will conduct the proceedings in OP No.932/12 between the parties by in camera proceedings. OP is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/- P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE