IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2543 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.129/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------------ 1. BIJU, S/O. SADANANDAN, NILAMEL KAROTTU VEEDU, KALIVAYAL, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 2. RETNAMMA, AGED 55, D/O. KARTHIYANI, NILAMEL KAROTTU VEEDU, KALIVAYAL, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SINI, W/O. BIJU, BINDHU BHAVAN, EZHUKONE MURI AND VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. PIN-691560. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (FC).No. 2543 of 2011(R) APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------------------- P1: THE TRUE PHOTOCPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.129/2010 DT. 31.1.2011 P2: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IA NO.83/2011 DT.10.1.2011 IN OP NO.129/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. RESPPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN,JJ. ----------------------------------------- OP(FC) No.2543 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan,J. Second petitioner's son, the first petitioner is the husband of the respondent who filed application before the Family Court for recovery of money, gold ornaments and for compensation. That stands decreed exparte. 3. The application filed to set aside the exparte decree was allowed by the Family Court on condition of payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. That was sought to be reviewed, as regards the order for costs. Family Court negatived that request. Hence this original petition. 4. Though the learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the question as to availability of any ground for review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, in exercise of authority under Article 227, we further see that this is a case where the petitioners before us, who are the respondents in the OP(FC) No.2543 of 2011 2 original proceedings were declared exparte at one stage; that was set aside at the stage of evidence; though that order was also conditional on payment of costs, the said order for costs was not complied with. When the matter was taken up for evidence; again the respondents kept themselves away from trial and it was then that the wife's evidence was relied on and decree passed. Looking into the order issued by the Family Court on 18.12.2010 allowing I.A. No.335/2010 and setting aside the exparte order, is essentially a non speaking one. To be good fortune of the petitioners before us the wife has not challenged that order. We however do not find any ground to conclude that the amount of Rs.5,000/- fixed as costs is unreasonable or irrational, warranting exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners before us says that the counsel who was appearing for his clients before the Family Court had undergone coronary bypass and that the second petitioner was sick and her son was taking care of her. There is no material in support of these allegations, as rightly noted by OP(FC) No.2543 of 2011 3 the Family Court in the impugned order. At any rate, we do not find any error of jurisdiction or illegality warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners herein. Original petition fails. In the result, the original petition is dismissed in limine. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. rkc