IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31024 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2231/09 IN OP.1812/2008 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- NOUSHAD K.M., S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS, KUNDUVELI HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA SOUTH, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A RESPONDENT: --------------- NISHA J., W/O.JAKKEER HUSSAIN, AGED 35 YEARS, NEDAVELIL BUILDING, 13/84, 9G, THOPPIL JUNCTION, UNICHIRA, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI 682 021. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPCY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NUMBER 488/08 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN IA NUMBER 2231/09 IN OP 1812/08. KS. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 31024 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. There is a long story behind this petition. The respondent herein had filed two Original Petitions before the Family Court, Ernakulam staking claims against her husband one Jakeer Hussain. One of them – O.P.No. 1543/2007 has already been decreed on 22-9-2008 and the appellant is found entitled to get a total amount of Rs.5,76,000/- along with interest and costs. Her husband remained ex parte in that proceedings. Another application, O.P.No.1812/2008, is pending before the Family Court. That again is a claim for money (maintenance) staked by the respondent herein and her daughters against the said Jakeer Hussain. There also the said Jakeer Hussain has been set ex parte and the said proceedings are about to be disposed of finally by passing an ex parte decree, it is submitted. WPC.31024/2009 -2- 2. The petitioner herein had filed a suit against the said Jakeer Hussain for enforcement of a mortgage claim. That suit has also been decreed ex parte by the civil court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that her husband, the said Jakkeer Hussain is not now available in the locality. He is alleged to have eloped with another lady. Be that as it may, there was a fourth claim against the said Jakeer Hussain staked by the State Bank of India under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The property allegedly mortgaged to the petitioner herein was the subject matter of the said proceedings initiated by the Bank. To cut a long story short, the Bank had got the property sold and the proceeds were used in part to discharge the liability to the Bank. As per the judgment of this Court dated 28-7-2008 in W.P.(C)No.3681/2008, the balance amount has been deposited before the Family Court. That judgment was rendered in a proceedings initiated by the respondent herein. The respondent herein has initiated steps to get the amount in deposit for satisfaction of the order WPC.31024/2009 -3- in O.P.No. 1543/2007. 3. At this juncture, the petitioner herein also wanted to stake a claim for the said amount. Instead of seeking attachment of the said amount in execution of the decree, which he has secured, the petitioner appears to have filed an application to get himself impleaded in O.P.No.1812/2008. That petition stands dismissed by the impugned order, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? By any stretch of imagination, the petitioner cannot claim any right to get himself impleaded in O.P.No.1812/2008 between the respondent and her husband in which the respondent had staked claims for payment of maintenance. The court below in these circumstances, according to us, has committed absolutely no error, impropriety or perversity warranting invocation of our extra ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's prayer to get himself impleaded in O.P.No.1812/2008 is thus found to be without any basis WPC.31024/2009 -4- whatsoever. The court below was absolutely justified in dismissing such prayer for impleadment. 5. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this writ petition only deserves to be dismissed. We may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim relief, if he is entitled to any such relief, according to law before appropriate forum. 6. This writ petition is hence dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. WPC.31024/2009 -5-