IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13491 of 2010(R) -------------------------- MC.294/2008 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- TONY KUNJUVAREETHU, AGED 34 YEARS, ACCHADAN HOUSE, KONNAKKUZHI P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- LINY TONY, AGED 24, KURIAPPILLY HOUSE, THURUTHIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C No.13491 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The petitioner is the respondent in a proceedings pending before the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. His wife is the claimant/petitioner in the said proceedings. Ext.P1 is the petition filed by the wife of the petitioner. The prayer (a) in the said petition is: a) This Hon'ble court may by an order direct the Respondent to grant maintenance to the petitioner and the minor child aged 1 year at the rate of 10,000/- per month. 2. The application was opposed. Technical arguments were raised. At that stage, the respondent/wife filed Ext.P(2) application to permit her to amend the petition. What is the amendment sought? The respondent prayed that her daughter may formally be arrayed as a party in the petition. By way of abundant caution, she prayed that the word 'each' may be added at the end of prayer (a) to make it clear that maintenance was W.P.(C).No.13491/10 : 2 : being claimed at Rs.10,000/- per month each for the respondent and her child. 3. This application was also vehemently opposed. The court below, by the impugned order, allowed the same application. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The petitioner wants this court to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. There is no provision to amend a petition in the Cr.P.C. The order passed is a non-speaking order. These are the contentions raised. 5. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court entertains an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction which jurisdiction is to be invoked and entertained only in the interests of justice. We note that the prayer for amendment was actually not necessary and was only clarificatory in nature. The very nature of the prayer shows that what was sought was only a clarification to avoid any unnecessary future dispute. W.P.(C).No.13491/10 : 3 : 6. We are not satisfied that the impugned order leads to failure of justice or that in the interests of justice, we must be persuaded to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.(C).No.13491/10 : 4 : W.P.(C).No.13491/10 : 5 : R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009