Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Having regard to the nature of the directions being issued hereunder, notice to the respondent is dispensed with preserving her right to seek re-hearing of this matter, if she is aggrieved by the directions contained herein.
2. The petitioner challenges an action taken by the Family Court in a proceedings initiated by him seeking divorce. The respondent-wife was served. Thereafter, the parties had participated in proceedings before the conciliator. After the conciliation proceedings, it appears that the respondent-wife did not turn up for further proceedings. In its wisdom, the Family Court appears to have taken the view that it may be necessary to issue a further notice to the wife. Obviously, the petitioner- husband could not have been found fault with the non- appearance of a person who was already served and who had OPFC 541/2014 2 appeared in answer to the process of the court. Yet, we think that in matrimonial jurisdiction, the Family Court cannot be treated as having gone beyond jurisdiction or of having acted irregularly in directing the petitioner to take steps. But, we are satisfied that the petitioner should not have been pressurized to take steps within a short time span since the object sought to be achieved is to find out whether the respondent, who had already been served with notice and who had attended the court, is to be again notified to appear. Under such circumstances, the time limit fixed by the Family Court on 15.10.2014 for taking steps is enlarged till 20.11.2014.
This original petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE ks.
True copy Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE P.S.to Judge OPFC 541/2014 3