IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28064 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.101/2009 of FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANOJ KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SARASAMMA, PULICKAL PLACHERIL VEEDU AIYROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JAYAMOL, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, PANACHIKKAL HOUSE VELANILAM PO, MUNDAKKAYAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.28064 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant,J Against the petitioner, his wife - the respondent has filed O.P.No.101/09 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor. In that O.P, inter alia a claim is made for return of ornaments etc. The petitioner has already entered appearance in that case. Objections have also been filed, it is submitted. Inter alia, the contention is raised that the claim for money and ornaments has already been considered by a competent Magistrate in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the claim for ornaments and money has been turned down by Ext.P4 order. The said order, it is submitted, has become final. In view of the finality achieved by Ext.P4 order, the attempt to reagitate the very same claim in O.P.No.101/09 is not maintainable, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be invoked to quash proceedings in O.P.No.101/09. W.P.C No.28064/09 2 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have perused the records. If the petitioner has a grievance that O.P.No.101/09 is not maintainable in the light of Ext.P4, the decision of the learned Magistrate which allegedly has become final, it is certainly for the petitioner to raise that contention before the court below and request the court to decide the said issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue. We are not persuaded to agree that it is necessary for this court to consider the said contention in this proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, no order has been passed on this contention raised by the petitioner before the court below. 3. With the above observation that it shall be open to the petitioner to raise that contention before the court below and seek appropriate orders, this writ petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C No.28064/09 3 W.P.C No.28064/09 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009