A.Hariprasad, J.
Petitioner is not a party to O.P.(Divorce) No.1210 of 2011 filed by the 1st respondent wife against the 2nd respondent husband before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the father of 2nd respondent. Petitioner's grievance is that he is unnecessarily summoned in the case. He was functioning as Bishop of St.Thomas Evangelical Church of India and now he is leading a retired life. It is also submitted that he is having ailments due to old age. It is seen from Ext.P3 impugned order that he was summoned by the court below in the original proceedings at the instance of the petitioner therein (1st respondent herein). In the impugned order the court below observed that the examination of petitioner herein is essential for proper adjudication of the case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is legally unsustainable for the following reasons. Firstly, OP(FC) No.273/2014 2 examination of the petitioner as a witness is not required for proper adjudication of the matter. Secondly, the attempt of the 1st respondent herein is to fish out evidence regarding the alleged payment of patrimony in a matter pending before the same court. And thirdly, the petitioner, who was a Bishop, shall not be compelled to depose in a dispute wherein his son is involved.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, we are of the view that there is no immunity claimable by the petitioner from deposing as a witness in any judicial proceedings. He is not a party to the proceedings. So there is no question of the opposite party citing him as a witness. Therefore, we are not impressed about the third contention. Regarding the first contention, the trial court in its impugned order has mentioned reasons for summoning the petitioner. We find no illegality or impropriety in the said reasonings of the court below. In respect of the second contention that the petitioner is summoned to fish out evidence for another litigation, we consider that it is for the court below to see that evidence is adduced only in respect of matters which are relevant for resolution of the dispute. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being an old man with attached ailments and considering his status, should OP(FC) No.273/2014 3 be permitted to be examined through a commission. We do not wish to make any observation in this matter. However, petitioner is free to request the court below for examining him through commission and in that event, court below shall consider that matter in accordance with law.
With this observation, the original petition is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks