Divya L. vs Rukhilesh M.G.

K.M. Joseph, J.—Prayer in the Original Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is for a direction to hear and dispose of Ext. P2 restoration applications filed, within a time limit. We called for a Report. The Report received in respect of both the Original Petitions reads as follows:

As directed, contacted the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Sheristadar, after verification, informed that I.A. No. 2087/11 in O.P. (H.M.A.) No. 980/08 is a restoration petition. It was taken up on 12.9.2011. On that date the petitioner was present and counter petitioner was absent. Objection has been filed. I.A. stood posted to 12.12.2011. Since there was no sitting on 12.12.2011, the I.A. stood posted to 13.3.2012 by notification.

I.A. 2086/11 in O.P. No. 525/08 was also taken up on 12.9.2011. In that I.A. petitioner was present and the counter petitioner was represented. Objection has been filed. The I.A. was adjourned to 12.12.2011 for hearing. Since there was no sitting, the I.A. stood posted to 13.3.2012 by notification.

The learned Judge informed that the above I.As. have been posted to distant dates because of the very heavy pendency in the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram. He further informed that though in both the petitions, I.As. were filed for advancing the petitions, no convincing urgency was stated. The learned Judge further informed that if fresh petition is filed stating urgency, he is prepared to consider the application and to take up the matter at the earliest.

We heard the learned counsel. We made available the Report to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Without prejudice to the right available to the petitioner to move for early hearing, we dispose of the Original Petitions.