IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 658 of 2008() ---------------------------- OP(G&W).711/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------- VINETHA, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.AMBIKA T.C. 33/1796,LEKSHMI NIVAS, NETAJI ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------- SHAJI KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SREEKANTAN NAIR, MAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLAIKKADAVU, KODUNGANNOOR, VATTIYOORKAVU VILLAGE ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- MAT.APPEAL NO.658 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman,J. The judgment of the Family Court is stated to be on consent from both sides. The appeal is filed alleging that there was no such consent. However, no review as such is filed before the court below. In the circumstances, the proper course open to the appellant is to seek review of the judgment, since what transpired at the time of hearing before the Family Court is in dispute. In this regard we are fortified in our conclusion by the decision of the Apex Court in Rambali v. State of U.P. ((2004) 10 SCC 598). In the result, without prejudice to the appellant's right to move for review, this appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.