IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17159 of 2009(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRASAD KUMAR, KANNANKURATHU VEEDU, KODUMON.P.O., KODUMON VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- N.VASANTHA KUMARI, MURIPPUKALA KIZHAKKATHIL, EDATHITTA MURI, KODUMON VILLAGE, ADOOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.17159 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J Against the petitioner, an ex parte order directing him to pay maintenance has been passed by the Family Court. He filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. That application was allowed on terms. The petitioner did not comply with that order. Instead, he came to this court. By Ext.P1 order, another Bench of this court dismissed the said writ petition and observed that the petitioner can move the court below in review. 2. It is submitted that an application for review has been filed and the same stands posted to 01/08/2009. Ext.P1 order is dated 22/7/2008 and it passes our comprehension as to why the review petition, if filed promptly, stands posted now to 01/08/2009 for appearance of the respondent. Admittedly, an execution petition is pending before the court to execute the ex parte order. It is at this juncture that the petitioner has come to this court with this writ petition again. W.P.C No 17159/09 2 3. The petitioner must have moved the Family Court to advance hearing of the review petition. That has admittedly not been done. We do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the prayer to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued to secure the interests of the justice. 4. Considering the nature of the relief that we propose to grant, we are satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent now. 5. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. Following directions are issued: a) The petitioner shall, within a period of 15 days, deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as directed by the Family Court. If deposited, the said amount shall not be released to the petitioner until the review petition that is I.A.No.1621/08 is disposed of. b) If the amount of Rs.20,000/- is deposited within a period of 15 days, no further steps for execution shall be taken by the Family Court before the review petition I.A.No.1621/09 is W.P.C No 17159/09 3 disposed of. c) Revision petition I.A.No.1621/09 shall, in that event, be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date on which the deposit of Rs.20,000/- is made as directed by this court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C No 17159/09 4 W.P.C No 17159/09 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 18/06/2009