JACKSON JAMES v. DILROSE RAPHAEL

disposed of without any further delay by way of summary trial, and therefore tagging the same along with the original petitions would not be justified. It is submitted that there are orders for interim maintenance, and therefore, the reason mentioned by the Family Court is not justifiable.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused Ext.P2 order, we are of the view that Ext.P2 order does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are to be tried summarily and have to be disposed of without undue delay. The Family Court is therefore right in holding that the M.C. filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. need not be tried along with the original petitions, which are pending before the same Court and between the same parties. The Family Court has directed that the four original petitions, which are pending before that Court between the same parties, shall be tried together and the M.C. filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can O.P.(FC) No.311 Of 2024 -:4:- be tried separately. We find no illegality or impropriety in the order of the Family Court warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This original petition will therefore stand dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE O.P.(FC) No.311 Of 2024 -:5:- APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 311/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.3/2024 IN O.P.NO.601/2020 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2024 IN I.A.NO.3/2024 IN O.P.NO.601/2020 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT; THRISSUR