IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP (FC).No. 467 of 2010(R) ----------------------------------- IA.533/2010 IN OP.379/2001 of FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.LATE KUNJAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PARADISE, T.C.NO.6/2, MANNARKONAM, VATTIYOORKAVU VILLAGE, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT: C.R. REMANI, FLAT NO.5(A), VASANTH APARTMENT, MANJALIKULAM ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695036. BY ADV. SRI.V.SURESH SMT.JAYASREE THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN OPFC 467/2010 EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO OP 379/2001 EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP 379/2001, OS 94/2001, OS 102/2001 & OS 167/2001 & OP 379/2001DT. 30.4.09 OF THE FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 3496/09 IN MA 917/09 EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IA.533/10 OF FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 26.8.2010 IN IA.533/10 OF FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM. /TRUE COPY/ Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & C.T.Ravikumar, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.(FC)No.467 of 2010 R ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan J. Petitioner is the husband. Mat.Appeal Nos.917/2009, 923/2009, 924/2009 and 925/2009 are pending before this Court between him and his wife, the respondent. In the meanwhile, it appears that three Fixed Deposits, totalling to Rupees Five lakhs, had matured with efflux of time and they require to be renewed. I.A.No.533/2010 was filed in O.P. No.379/2001 before the Family Court. That original petition was already disposed of and that is the subject matter of one or two of the Mat. Appeals. Learned Judge of the Family Court ordered renewal of the Fixed Deposit and issued directions to the Treasury Saving Bank authorities. The Judge, however, refused the request of the husband/ OPFC 467/10 2 petitioner for permission to withdraw the interest component that accrued on the Fixed Deposit. 2. While the husband challenges the refusal to release the interest component to him, we see that the learned Judge treated the amount in deposit as security for the amount covered by Exhibit P3 interim order granted by this Court on 10.12.2009. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error of jurisdiction or legal infirmity in the court below having done that, warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. In fact, we think that the court below was all the more justified in doing so because, the parties stood regulated by the orders already passed by the superior courts. Therefore, if at all any clarification is required regarding the amount lying in deposit, that is to be obtained from the court where the appeals are pending, i.e., this Court, more particularly OPFC 467/10 3 because of the interim order already passed, as can be seen from Exhibit P3 order. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned Exhibit P5 order. In the result, this original petition is dismissed. (Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge) (C.T.Ravikumar, Judge) tkv