IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33699 of 2008(S) -------------------------- IA.NOS.1111/2008, 2365/2008 & 2027/2008 IN OP.685/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHEENDRAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, AGED 74 YEARS, DONAVILLA, GOKUL NAGAR, NELLEPELLY, PALAKKAD,NOW RESIDING AT M.S.NIVAS,KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RATHI, D/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, DONAVILLA, GOKUL NAGAR,NALLEPELLY, PALAKKAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.33699 of 2008-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The husband in a matrimonial dispute is the petitioner herein. O.P.No.685/2007 before the Family Court, Palakkad is one filed under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaration and recovery of possession of the property from the possession of the respondent. The wife, after entering appearance, filed I.A.No.1111/2008 claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses which was allowed by Ext.P1 order. It is a case where the petitioner disputes the marriage itself and he has produced Ext.P2 herein as a proof of his marriage with Jaya Sreenivasan. 2. The application for grant of interim maintenance was allowed, as the petitioner did not file any counter. Thereafter, he filed a review petition, Ext.P3, seeking review of the order. He has also filed a counter to the application seeking interim maintenance along with the review petition. It is produced herein as Ext.P4. Meanwhile, the wife has filed Ext.P5, a petition seeking to strike off the pleadings of the petitioner herein which is numbered as I.A.No.2027/2008. WPC 33699/2008 -2- 3. Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.30442/2008 to quash the order in I.A.No.1111/2008 which was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue his remedy in the review petition. 4. In the present writ petition, the complaint is that unless the review petition is heard earlier, the same will result in serious prejudice to him. It is stated that the review petition and the application filed by the wife seeking to strike off the pleadings of the petitioner, are posted to 20.11.2008 5. We are of the view that unless the review petition is heard earlier than the petition filed by the wife to strike off his pleadings, serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Family Court, Palakkad to hear and dispose of the review petition, viz. I.A.No.2365/2008 seeking to review the order passed in I.A.No.1111/2008 before any orders are passed in I.A.No.2027/2008 filed by the wife. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/