IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3563 of 2008(S) ------------------------- OP(OS).204/2006 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SUDHEER M.K., S/o.KARTHYKAYAN, ALUNKAL HOUSE, C.M.C.-16, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.SANKARAN SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. SEEMA, D/o. C.V.GOPI, ASARIPARAMBIL, MUHAMMA PANCHAYATH, WARD No: IV, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. VISHNUMAYA (SREEKUTTY), MINOR, D/o. SEEMA, ASARIPARAMBIL, MUHAMMA PANCHAYATH, WARD NO:1V, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ ============================ W.P.(C).No.3563 of 2008 =========================== Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT KURIAN JOSEPH,J Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OP.(OS).No.204/2006 dated 23.05.2007. Admittedly, it is an ex parte decree. It is not disputed that the petitioner had in fact received notice from the Family Court, and thereafter only he was set ex parte, and subsequently decree has also been passed. Normal remedy open to the petitioner is to file an appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the issue on maintenance also is involved, that relief regarding future maintenance cannot be pursued in an appeal. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to pursue the challenge against that part of the order regarding future maintenance in a revision petition. Without prejudice to such normal remedies open to the W.P.(C).No.3563/2008 2 petitioner by way of an appeal and a revision, this writ petition is dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID,JUDGE dvs