Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen quashed the Family Court’s interim orders that directed a woman and her minor daughter to undergo medical examination by a government hospital’s medical board in a pending maintenance case. The Court held that such an order had no relevance in maintenance proceedings and set it aside, further directing the Family Court to dispose of the maintenance claim on merits within three months.

The original petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two interim orders—Ext. P3 and Ext. P8—issued in M.C. No. 236 of 2020 by the Family Court, Thalassery. The petitioners, comprising a woman and her minor daughter, had instituted the maintenance proceedings against the respondent, who was the husband and father respectively. The claim was for financial support under applicable personal laws.

Also Read: SC Cancels Bail In Post-Poll Violence Case | Crime Was A Grave Attack On The Roots Of Democracy | Fair Trial Impossible Amid Political Clout And Witness Intimidation

During the pendency of the maintenance proceedings, the Family Court referred the parties for counselling. Based on a report received from the counsellor, which allegedly flagged concerns about the mental health of the petitioners, the respondent filed C.M.P. No. 29 of 2022. This application sought referral of the petitioners for mental health evaluation before a Medical Board at the District Hospital, Kannur.

The Family Court, upon hearing both sides, allowed the application and passed an interim order (Ext. P3) directing the petitioners to appear for medical examination on 9 February 2022. Pursuant to this, another order (Ext. P13) was issued instructing the respondent to arrange transportation via taxi for the petitioners to attend the examination.

The petitioners’ counsel argued before the High Court that in a proceeding for maintenance, directing the applicants to undergo mental health evaluation was unwarranted and legally unsustainable. He submitted that the limited scope of a maintenance claim required only consideration of the petitioners’ inability to maintain themselves and the respondent’s capacity and obligation to provide for them. Hence, medical examination had no legal or procedural relevance to the issue at hand.

The respondent’s counsel defended the Family Court’s orders by pointing to the counsellor’s report which raised suspicions regarding the mental condition of the petitioners. He stated that based on this report, C.M.P. No. 29 of 2022 had been filed. It was also submitted that the respondent remained willing to resume cohabitation and assume responsibility for maintaining his wife and child, but the petitioners were allegedly unwilling.

The petitioners filed the original petition (OP(CRL.) No. 101 of 2022) before the High Court, seeking to set aside the interim orders and direct the Family Court to adjudicate their maintenance claim expeditiously and on its merits.

The Court considered the question whether it was appropriate to direct a medical examination of the petitioners in a maintenance case solely on the basis of a counsellor’s report.

Justice A. Badharudeen recorded: “In a proceedings for maintenance, the point of consideration is; whether the petitioners are having means of maintenance by themselves, and the respondent is having the legal obligation, capacity, and income to maintain the claimants.”

The Court stated: “It is strange to note that the petitioners approached the family court claiming maintenance for their survival, alleging that they did not have any means of survival.” It further recorded: “In such a case, merely acting on the report of the counsellor, when a petition was filed by the respondent, the petitioners’ medical board examination was ordered by the family court to ascertain their mental status.”

On the question of necessity, the Court stated: “What is the purpose for getting such a report is not at all discernible.” It also took note that the respondent, who had cohabited with the petitioners, had not previously expressed any concern regarding their mental health prior to the counsellor’s report: “Even the respondent who resided along with the petitioners did not doubt the mental status of the petitioners before the counsellor’s report.”

In the broader context of the proceedings, the Court made it clear: “In a proceedings for maintenance, there is no purpose in referring the petitioners for assessing their mental status to decide the question of maintenance.”

Justice A. Badharudeen quashed both interim orders passed by the Family Court and allowed the original petition. The Court stated: “In such view of the matter, both these orders are found to be not necessary and are accordingly set aside, and this Original Petition stands allowed accordingly.”

The High Court further directed: “Since the MC has been pending for the last five years, there shall be a direction to the Family Court, Thalassery, to expedite the disposal of MC on merits, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.”

Also Read: Cruelty Proven Beyond Doubt | Kerala High Court Upholds Divorce Saying A Woman’s Forgiveness Is Strength Not Weakness But Has Its Limits

In conclusion, the Court observed: “It is made clear that the Family Court can consider the willingness expressed by the respondent as submitted before this court by his counsel, regarding the reunion of the parties if both of them consent for the same.”

The Registry was directed: “Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the family court, Thalassery, for information and compliance.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: K. Mohanakannan, H. Praveen (Kottarakara), Advocates

For the Respondent: T.M. Raman Kartha, Advocate

Case Title: XXXX Vs. YYYY

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:37281

Case Number: OP(CRL.) No. 101 of 2022

Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen

[Read/Download order]