IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 957 of 2010(C) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MA.162/2010 Dated 29/09/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER : IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ VIJAYAKUMARI, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.OMMANAPILLAI,THENGUVILA PADETTATHIL, CHUNNAKKARA SOUTH,CHUNNAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENTS : APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 9 --------------------------------------------- 1. RAMA KRISHNA PILLAI,KATTOOR,CHUNNAKKARA SOUTH,CHARAMMUDU.P.O. 2. VANAJA,KAPPAMAVU VILAYIL,KUMPARA.P.O, CHERIYANADU. 3. SOMAN PILLAI,KATTOOR VEEDU,CHUNNAKKARA SOUTH,CHUNNAKKARA. 4. BABUKUTTAN PILLAI,-DO- -DO- 5. ARAVIND KUMAR JAIN,INFIRA,VARSHA BHAVAN, ARON,GUNA(DIST)MADHYA PRADESH-473101. 6. POOJA JAIN,-DO- -DO- 7. KANCHI JAIN, -DO- -DO- 8. MEGHA JAIN, -DO- -DO- 9. YASH JAIN, -DO- -DO- THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. *********************** R.P.No.957 of 2010 in Mat.Appeal No.162 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 ORDER BASANT, J. The claimant/wife in a claim for money before the Family Court has filed this review petition. Her husband, (the 1st respondent in the O.P (O.S) before the court below) had filed Mat.Appeal No.162 of 2010 to challenge the order granting her reliefs. When that appeal came up for hearing, it was noted that the impugned order was one passed without the participation of the appellant/husband before the court below. After discussions at the bar, the learned counsel for the appellant had chosen to withdraw the appeal. This Court accordingly proceeded to pass the order/judgment dated 29.09.2010. The operative portion of which in para.4 reads as follows: “4. We are satisfied that the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant can be accepted. The application for condonation of delay and the Matrimonial Appeal are hence dismissed as R.P.No.957 of 2010 in Mat.Appeal No.162 of 2010 2 withdrawn without any fetter on the right of the petitioner/appellant to move the court below to get the exparte order set aside. We may hasten to observe that we have not intended to express any opinion on the acceptability of the request to get the exparte order set aside. It shall be open to both parties to raise appropriate contentions before the court below, if such application to set aside the exparte order is filed.” 2. The petitioner, the 1st respondent in the appeal, has now come up before this Court with a petition to review that order. The contention of the petitioner is that as a matter of fact the order impugned in the Mat.Appeal is not an exparte order. 3. Para.4 of the order/judgment dated 29.09.2010 extracted above makes it clear that we have not directed the court below to allow the application to set aside the exparte order, if any, filed. The contentions which otherwise would be available to the petitioner can be raised before the court below if any such application to set aside the exparte order is filed. We are satisfied that the impugned order need not now be reviewed, R.P.No.957 of 2010 in Mat.Appeal No.162 of 2010 3 but it can be clarified that the order/judgment dated 29.09.2010 shall not preclude the petitioner herein from raising any contention - including the contention that Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C is not applicable to the factual situations, before the Family Court. 4. With the above observations, this review petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) rtr/