IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 3 of 2011() ---------------------------------- OP.288/2003 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S) :PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ DR.RAJ MATHEW, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.LATE A.M.MATHEW, RESIDING AT PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, C.C.1/588, SOUTH THAMARAPARAMBU, FOR KOCHI, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SENIOIR) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- SHEENA R.MATHEW, D/O.K.M.CHACKO, KIZHAKEDATHU HOUSE, MALAKKARA NAGAR, ARANMULAM, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 641. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ Mat. Appeal No.3 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.2585/2010 in I.A.No.2586/2010 and I.A.No.2588/2010. 2. I.A.No.2585/2010 is an application to condone the delay of 1112 days in filing the review petition. I.A.No.2586/2010 is an application to stay the implementation of the judgment in OP.No.288/2003. The Family Court found that the application to review the judgment is not maintainable. This is for the reason that the appellant has preferred an appeal as Mat.Appeal No.272/2007 before this Court against the order. Referring to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Family Court found that an application for review is not maintainable. 3. We heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant. Learned senior counsel would submit that the application for review was filed on the ground that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction in view of Section 4 of MA No.3/2011 -2- the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. We do not see how the contention that the Court does not have jurisdiction would confer right to apply for review. Even in such cases review is not maintainable for the reason that an appeal is carried against the same order. There is no dispute that Mat.Appeal 272/2007 is filed. It is filed against the common order in O.P.288/2003. The application to review is also filed against the common order in OP.288/2003. Therefore, there can be no dispute that the appeal is preferred against the common order in OP 288/2003 no doubt disposing of other cases also. In view of the fact that appeal is preferred we see no flaw in the reasoning of the Family Court by which it is found that the application for review is not maintainable. In such circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal fails, and it is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (P.BHAVADASAN) JUDGE. MS