Mohanan, J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had preferred Ext.P2, ie.,I.A.No.1030/13, in Ext.P1 petition, which is an application filed under the provisions of Guardian and Wards Act, for the interim custody of minor daughter, the above application is not considered so far by the court below and the same is being adjourned without showing any posting date in the B diary of the court below. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner, has also preferred Ext.P3 application vide I.A.No.1498/13 questioning the maintainability of the original petition filed by the petitioner and that petition was also being adjourned without proper consideration. Hence it is prayed that the court below may be directed to consider Exts.P2 and P3 applications and to O.P.(F.C.)No.317 of 2014 2 pass appropriate orders within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. We heard Adv.Smt.M.A.Zohra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and we have perused the materials produced along with the above petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below frequently adjourning those petitions on the ground that counselling is going on. According to the learned counsel, the said approach of the court below is incorrect and improper. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, according to us, is not acceptable, since it is the duty of the Family courts to have interaction with the parties either directly or through the counsellor, to find out the possibility of settlement. It goes without saying that consideration of any interlocutory applications or orders therein, is likely to adversely affect the counselling or conciliation. However, that is not a ground to postpone the consideration and hearing of the petitions indefinitely and thereby to protract the matter.
O.P.(F.C.)No.317 of 2014 3 Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that, this petition can be disposed of directing the court below to consider Exts.P2 (I.A.No.1030/13) and P3 (I.A.No.1498/13 in OP (G&W) No.623/13).
In the result, this OP is disposed of directing the Family court, Thiruvananthapuram, to expedite the counselling and thereafter to consider Exts.P2 and P3 applications without further delay and dispose the same on merit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/ Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, Judge