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 WP(C).No. 28364 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OP.507/2005 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SHEEBA, D/O.GEORGE, 94/(1)/7, B.MADHAVAN ROAD, PALLITHAZHAM, N.PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT: ------------------- ALBIN, S/O.AUGUSTINE, MOOTHEDATHU HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED HIS BROTHER AND NEXT FRIEND THOMAS, S/O.AUGUSTINE, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 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. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) 28364 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner has filed O.P. 661/2005 for maintenance for herself and children and O.P. 506/2005 seeking divorce. Yet another petition - O.P. 507/2005 was also filed for return of money and gold ornaments. According to the petitioner, though the house is standing in the name of the husband, it is a newly constructed house and the entire construction cost has been paid by the petitioner. Petitioner wanted to value the building by an expert appointed by the court below and for that purpose, filed I.A. 3070/2008 which was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The point that arises for consideration in the O.P. would be as to what is the contribution, if any, made by the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to adduce evidence as to the source from where the funds were raised and the amount that has been spent. So long as the petitioner has not adduced any evidence, merely by assessing the value of the building, that will not WP(C) 28364/2008 :2: however, show that the cost of the building was the contribution from the petitioner. However, at a later stage, if any dispute arises regarding the actual value of the building, it is open to the petitioner to either seek for such valuation or she can challenge the order impugned in the appeal after culmination of the proceedings whichever. But at this stage of the proceedings, we do not find that any relief could be granted interdicting further proceedings pending before the court below. In the circumstances, declining jurisdiction, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-