AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 214 wordsThe petitioner had earlier approached this Court through OP(FC) No.209/2023, seeking that the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, be directed to dispose of OP Nos.388/2022, 389/2022, 390/2022 and MC No.159/2021, within a time frame, which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment.
It is conceded by Smt.Majida – learned counsel for the petitioner, that pursuant thereto, the trial of the cases has begun; but alleged that it has been protracted unfairly by the Trial Court. She, therefore, prayed that the learned Family Court be directed to deliver judgment in all cases within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
We are afraid that we cannot accede to the afore plea in any manner whatsoever because that will be akin to us intervening with the processes of trial pending before the learned Family Court.
Pertinently, there are no specific instances of alleged “protraction” by the learned Family Court mentioned by the petitioner; or why this Original Petition has been filed, except saying that certain applications for recalling witnesses etc. are still pending. On such basis, there is a veiled attempt to point fingers at the Court, saying that it is “arbitrarily allowing the respondent to protract the matter” (sic).
We can only say this is unfortunate and we, therefore, dismiss this Original Petition.