JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. This Original Petition has been led under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 and P8 interim orders passed in M.C. No. 236 of 2020 on the les of the Family Court, Thalassery. The petitioners herein are the petitioners in M.C. No. 236 of 2020 and the respondent is also the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the orders impugned. 3. In this matter, the petitioners herein, who are the wife and minor child of the respondent, led application for maintenance before the Family Court, Thalassery. During pendency of the proceedings, the court referred the parties for counselling. Then the counsellor reported some symptoms of mental health to the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent led C.M.P. No. 29 of 2022 to refer the petitioners herein for a medical checkup before the Medical Board, District Hospital, Kannur to ascertain their mental state. On hearing both sides, the Family Court passed Ext.P3 order directing the petitioners to undergo a medical check-up on 09.02.2022, and as per Ext.P13 order, the respondent was directed to arrange taxi for the petitioners to attend the medical board examination. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact, in a petition led for maintenance medical examination of the petitioners is unwarranted, and the consideration of the court is only whether the petitioners are having means of sustenance and the capability of the respondent to repay the same. Therefore, the orders are illegal and the same are liable to be set aside with direction to the Family Court to dispose of MC No. 236 of 2020 of the Family Court, Thalassery, on merits. 5. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the counsellor reported mental issues, C.M.P. No. 29 of 2002 had been led by the respondent. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent further that the respondent is ready to take back the wife and the child and to maintain them, but they are not amenable for the same. 6. In this matter, the point to be considered is whether a medical examination of the petitioners, merely based on suspected symptoms of mental health issues, is necessary in a proceedings claiming maintenance? 6. In this matter, the point to be considered is whether a medical examination of the petitioners, merely based on suspected symptoms of mental health issues, is necessary in a proceedings claiming maintenance? 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. 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. In such a case, merely acting on the report of the counsellor, when a petition was led by the respondent, the petitioners’ medical board examination was ordered by the family court to ascertain their mental status. What is the purpose for getting such a report is not at all discernible. Even the respondent who resided along with the petitioners did not doubt the mental status of the petitioners before the counsellor’s report. In a proceedings for maintenance, there is no purpose in referring the petitioners for assessing their mental status to decide the question of maintenance. 7. 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. 8. Since the MC has been pending for the last ve 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. 9. 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. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the family court, Thalassery, for information and compliance.