IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 686 of 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/03/2007 IN IA 188/05 IN OS.12/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- SUDHA, RESIDING AT K.T. SADHANAM, KARAMKODU, ARATHU CHERRY, CHATHANOOR, MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. SANTHA KUMARI, RESIDING AT KAIRALI, NORTH CHERRY, MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SEENA RESIDING AT KAIRALI NORTH, CHERRI, MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = MAT. APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The main suit O.S. 12/2005 is still pending before the Family Court, Kollam which is a suit for realisation of money and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the immovable properties. In that case an interlocutory application was moved for a temporary injunction which was granted. Alleging violation of that order and to take action, I.A. 188/2005 was filed. 2. The fist respondent is the mother in law of the appellant and the second respondent is the sister-in-law. The husband of the appellant is residing abroad. There are other matrimonial disputes pending consideration before the Family Court. The court below after analysing the evidence on record, found that the allegation is not substantiated by cogent evidence. The order itself was passed as early as 9.3.2007 and more than a year has elapsed thereafter. Admittedly, the appellant is now residing in another building. The prime consideration of the court was as to whether the alleged violation of the order of injunction is supported by evidence. But the evidence on record was not sufficient to come to such a conclusion. 3. We have gone through the order passed by the court below. We do not find that the order impugned in this appeal could be said to be M.A. 686/2008 :2: perverse. Further, the main matter is still pending consideration before the court below. As a matter of fact, except the evidence of PW.2 examined in the case, the relevant portion of which is extracted in the order, no other independent evidence is let in by examining anybody in the locality to substantiate the contention. In the circumstances, we find no interference is called for with the impugned order. We direct the Family Court to expedite the main case now pending before it. The fact that the allegation complained of could not be substantiated, however, is no reason to reject his contention in the suit. The court below having granted an injunction sought for earlier which is still in force, will dispose of the matter untrammelled by any of the findings or observations made now in the impugned order. The appeal is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-