IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 RP.No. 686 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MA.380/2010 Dated 11/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT IN THE MAT.APPEALS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VASANTHAKUMAR,S/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, VIVA VILLA,PLOT NO.6,B- BLOCK,BHASKAR RAO NAGAR, SANIK PURI,SECUNDAREBAD,ANDRA PRADESH,REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER E.RAVINDRANATH, S/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN,43 YEARS, RESIDING AT ERUPPATHON HOUSE,PALAPPURAM.P.O, OTTAPPALAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN THE MAT.APPEALS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JAYANTHI KANAKADEVI,D/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, PAYYERI VALLIKUNNU,THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. BY ADV. SRI. BABU S. NAIR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 686 of 2011 in Mat. Appeal 380 & 381 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011 ORDER R.BASANT,J. This review petition is to review the order/judgment dated 11th November, 2010 in Mat.Appeals 380 and 381 of 2010 and connected applications. The appellant was directed to make deposit of certain amounts before the Family Court before that day and appear before the Family Court on 13.1.2011. 2. Detailed directions were issued about the consequences also. 3. The appellant did not deposit the amount in full. The Tribunal evidently made a record of the fact and the impugned order stands revived on 13.1.2011. The petitioners slept over the matter till 25.8.2011 and has now come forward with the present application for review of the judgment/order. It is submitted that, the direction that the petitioner must deposit the entire amount due under the ex-parte order, is a mistake and what was really intended was only that the deposit of balance amount of Rs.1,80,000/- must be made. 4. We find no error apparent on the face of the record. The order makes it very clear that this Court wanted the R.P. No. 686 of 2011 in Mat. Appeal 380 & 381 of 2010 2 petitioner to deposit the entire balance amount due under the ex-parte order directing payment of maintenance. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that this review petition only deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may now be given an opportunity to deposit the entire balance amount in terms of the order/judgment dated 11th November, 2010 even though the period prescribed has elapsed. We have heard both sides. We permit the petitioner to deposit the balance amount before the Tribunal on or before 14.11.2011. If such amount is deposited, the Family Court shall release the entire amount to the respondent/claimant. If such amount is deposited by 14.11.2011 that will be reckoned as sufficient compliance of the order/judgment dated 11th November, 2010. sd/- R.BASANT (JUDGE) sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE) rkc //True Copy// PA to Judge