2025:KER:29090 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP (FC) NO. 202 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 IN I.A.14/2025 IN OP(DIV) NO.638 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: NEERAJ.M., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. A.M. KRISHNAN, SAROJINI NIVAS, VELLIPARAMB, KUTTIKATTOOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673008 BY ADVS. HEMALATHA BINU GEORGE AVANI P.S. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SURANYA. K. MOHAN, D/O. MOHANANDAS, NOW RESIDING AT DEVIPADMAM, MUTTIL. P.O, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYNAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122 THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29090 OP(FC) 202/25 2 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the learned Family Court, Kalpetta, which has dismissed I.A.No.14/2025 filed by him, in OP(Div)No.638/2022. 2. The above said Original Petition has been filed by the respondent-wife seeking divorce from the petitioner; and in it, he filed the afore application, seeking that the services of a Psychologist be requisitioned for the purpose of counselling the parties. The learned Court, however, dismissed the said application through Ext.P5 order, stating that the course requested is unnecessary. 3. Smt.Hemalatha – learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that, though her client has asked for the service of a Psychologist, what he really wanted was an opportunity for the parties to talk to each other, which can be possible only through a proper Forum. She added that her client has been constrained to do so because, the respondent has refused to even talk to him whenever the parties were called for counselling and that this is manifest from the 2025:KER:29090 OP(FC) 202/25 3 proceedings on record. She thus prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside and the learned Family Court be directed to reconsider the I.A., thus to allow the parties to talk to each other, either through counselling or such other methods, so that their reunion may be possible. 4. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Smt.Hemalatha because, we notice that Ext.P4 objections have been filed by the respondent-wife, wherein, she has made it unequivocally clear that there is no possibility of any reunion between the parties. In fact, this has been so recorded in Ext.P5 order also and we see that this has been done, after the learned Court had interacted with the respondent. 5. That being said, the question whether a person can be subjected to a psychological analysis against his/her consent, has already been considered by this Court several times in the past and held to the negative. We fail to understand how the respondent in an Original Petition can seek that the petitioner be subjected to a medical/psychological analysis, and that too, ostensibly as part of counselling. This is more so, when the Statutes covering the area has 2025:KER:29090 OP(FC) 202/25 4 specific forensic stipulations for all requirements, including counselling. We have little doubt that the learned Family Court will, or has completed all such as per law. 6. In such view, we cannot find anything in error in Ext.P5. We, therefore, dismiss this Original Petition; however, leaving every liberty in law open to the parties and every right reserved to the learned Family Court, when the Original Petition is finally decided. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE RR 2025:KER:29090 OP(FC) 202/25 5 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 202/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN OP(D). NO. 638/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN OP(D). NO. 638/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF IA. NO. 14/2025 IN OP. NO. 638/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN IA. NO. 14/2025 IN OP. NO. 638/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 IN IA. NO. 14/2025 IN OP. NO. 638/2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA