2025:KER:25957 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP (FC) NO. 161 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2025 IN IA.NO.459/2019 IN OPGW NO.185 OF 2019 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ADARSH C.B. AGED 46 YEARS S/O CHANDRA BOSE K., RESIDING AT SANTHI, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 690518 BY ADVS. UMMUL FIDA C.IJLAL P.PARVATHY MAJID MUHAMMED K. ANANDU R. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ASWATHY SIDHARTHAN AGED 35 YEARS W/O ADARSH C.B., ASWATHY BHAVANAM, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KALLELIBHAGOM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 690519 OP(FC).No.161 of 2025 2025:KER:25957 2 BY ADVS. SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.RAJEEV KRISHNAN(K/000773/2015) OTHER PRESENT: SMT SAYYUJJA RADHAKRISHNAN THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(FC).No.161 of 2025 2025:KER:25957 3 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order of the learned Family Court, Chavara, to the extent to which he has been directed to undergo medical examination, along with the respondent. 2. Smt.Ummul Fida – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the impugned order arises out of I.A.No.459/2019 in OP(G&W) No.185/2019 - both of which had been filed by his client. She explained that I.A.No.459/2019 was filed, seeking that the respondent be subjected to medical examination; while OP(G&W) No.185/2019 was filed seeking permanent custody of his minor child. She added that the learned Court had interacted with the parties, to find that both of them should be subjected to medical evaluation; but that this was done without properly understanding the true factual circumstances and hurrying into a conclusion that her client is mentally infirm. She argued that this finding in Ext.P9 is wholly wrong; and hence prayed that the said order, to the extent to which it is impugned, be directed to be set aside. 3. Smt.Sayujya Radhakrishnan – learned counsel for the OP(FC).No.161 of 2025 2025:KER:25957 4 respondent, however, submitted that, though her client has not challenged Ext.P9 as of now, she intends to do so because, she had filed specific objections to the I.A before the learned Family Court, which have not been properly considered. She argued that since her client is in custody of the child, the question whether he should be given to the father, is a matter that ought to have been decided by the learned Family Court in due course, after following the statutory procedure, but not through an order like Ext.P9. She asserted that the findings of the learned Family Court in Ext.P9 against her client are totally unnecessary and untenable; but then interestingly, added that she is willing to undergo any checkup, but only if the petitioner also is so subjected, since she is confident that this would establish the true mental status of the latter and prove he is incompetent to hold custody of the child. 4. We notice from the rival submissions that both sides are equally aggrieved by Ext.P9, though the respondent makes a submission that she is willing to subject herself to a medical examination, though she has no mental infirmity or illness, but solely to establish the psychological situation of the petitioner. 5. However, it should be borne in mind that the application filed is only under Section 151 of the CPC; and we fail to fathom how the OP(FC).No.161 of 2025 2025:KER:25957 5 learned Family Court has directed both parties to go for a medical examination. In any event, it is well settled that any such evaluation can only be either as mandated by law or with the consent of the person concerned. Admittedly, in this case, neither of the above are obtained. In the above circumstances, we allow this Original Petition and set aside Ext.P9, however clarifying that the learned Family Court will be competent to issue any further orders in future, without being fettered by its opinion reflected in Ext.P9. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA, JUDGE Mms/SAS OP(FC).No.161 of 2025 2025:KER:25957 6 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 161/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUICIDE NOTE DATED 05/01/2015 WRITTEN BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATE 21/04/2019 ISSUED BY DR. AJAY KESAVAN, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, SAMAD HOSPITALS, TRIVANDRUM Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.(G&W) NO.185/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 04/04/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE ABOVE OP BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.459/2019 DATED 05/03/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.459/2019 IN O.P.(G&W) NO. 185/2019, BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/02/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND HIS SISTER Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 09/03/2022 OF THE SHO, KARUNAGAPPALLY Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/02/2025 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA IN I.A.NO.459/2019 IN O.P.(G&W) NO. 185/2019 OP(FC).No.161 of 2025 2025:KER:25957 7 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/03/2025 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER.