IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 995 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN FAO.151/2004 Dated 17/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT -------------------------------- PUSHPAVENI, W/O.THAYYIL SUBRAMANIAN & D/O.CHERAMPARAMBIL MANIKKAN, KODAKARA VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. GANGADHARAN, (DIED) S/O.THAYYIL GOVINDAN, PANANGATTU DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.THAYYIL GOVINDAN, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. (DIED). 3. MEENAKSHI, W/O.THAYYIL GANGADHARAN, PANANGATTU DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 4. RAJESH, S/O.THAYYIL GANGADHARAN, PANANGATTU DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 5. JAYASREE, D/O.THAYYIL GANGADHARAN, W/O.EDACHALI BABURAJ, P.O.EDATHIRINJI, KAKKATHURUTHI. 6. SEETHARAM, S/O.THAYYIL SUBRAMANIAN, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. R.P. NO.995/2009 7. THULASI, D/O.THAYYIL SUBRAMANIAN, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 8. GEETHA, W/O.THAYYIL SANTHOSH, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 9. SANGEETH, S/O.THAYYIL SANTHOSH, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 10. SANGEETHA, D/O.THAYYIL SANTHOSH, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. R6 BY ADV.MR.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:' tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. R.P.NO.995 OF 2009 in F.A.O.NO.151 OF 2004 ---------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2009 O R D E R This review petition is filed to review the judgment of this Court dated 17.9.2009 in FAO.No.159/2004. FAO.No.159/2004 was filed against the order of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakkuda in A.S.No.31/1999. The crux of the whole issue is regarding validity or invalidity of a marriage between the appellant and one Subramanyan. 2. It is submitted that the family court has declared the marriage as void but the said declaration is a attempted to be challenged on the ground that even admittedly going by the family court petition, one of the person is represented to be of unsound mind and the case had been disposed of without proper guardian. I make it very clear that I am not going into the merit or demerit of the case so that validity or invalidity of the marriage is the point that has to be considered. It is for that purpose, the matter has to be remitted back to the court below and therefore nothing : 2 : R.P.NO.995 OF 2009 remains to be interfered with the order or remand. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being a very old matter, time may be fixed for disposal. I direct the court below to dispose of the matter within three months from today after hearing all concerned. The review petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.NO.995 OF 2009