IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 OP (FC).No. 273 of 2010(P) -------------------------- OP.253/2005 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ SHEEBA D/O.SANTHA, MANGULATHY MELE PUTHEN VEEDU,PERUMBAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT): --------------- VIJAYAN,S/O.RAJAYYAN NADAR, THANNIMOODU,KIZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C.) No.273 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant J., The petitioner in this Writ Petition is the petitioner in O.P. No. 253 of 2005 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is submitted that the prayer in that original petition was for a decree for maintenance. It was later amended to include the prayer to set aside the release deed. Still later another application was filed to incorporate a prayer to claim recovery of 35 sovereign of gold ornaments or its value. Those prayers were allowed. The mater at long last crept into the list and it was posted for evidence. At that stage, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application to incorporate a further amendment to the petition. The amendment sought for was to include in the petition a schedule giving details of the 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The Court below, by the impugned order, did not allow the said prayer and proceeded to pass Ext.P5 order. O.P.(F.C.) No.273 of 2010 2 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order and wants this Court to invoke the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. We must say that we are not persuaded to invoke such extra ordinary jurisdiction to interfere with Ext.P5 order. Perversity, non application of mind or failure of justice are not vices that we can perceive in the impugned order. We further note that even without a specific schedule the petitioner is in law entitled to adduce evidence of the details of the 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments which she now wants to claim return of. The rejection of the prayer for amendment does not in any way result in failure or mis carriage of justice. 4. This Writ petition in these circumstances is dismissed. We make it clear that disposal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to adduce evidence about the details of 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments to be recovered and which is claimed in O.P. No. 253 of 2005, as it stands after amendment. O.P.(F.C.) No.273 of 2010 3 5. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner for immediate production before the Family Court. R. BASANT, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/