IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (FC).No. 1566 of 2011(R) --------------------------------------- OP.HMA.691/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. UNNIMAYA. S., W/O V. KRISHNA IYER, PADINJARE CHETHIMANGALATHU MADOM, EAST GATE, VAIKOM, NOW RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE ILLAM (KALPAKASSERI), THANNERMUKKOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 2. RAJALEKSHMI, AGED 10 YEARS, PADINJARE CHETHIMANGALATHU MADOM, EAST GATE,VAIKOM,NOW RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE ILLAM (KALPAKASSERI), THANNERMUKKOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER UNNIMAYA.S BY ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. V. KRISHNA IYER, PADINJARE CHETHIMANGALATHU MADOM, EAST GATE, VAIKOM NOW RESIDING AT SAI SANKARA SANTHI KENDRAM, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAMD DISTRICT, 683 574. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, EAST GATE, VAIKOM-686 141. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP (FC).No. 1566 of 2011(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 25/03/2010 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1518/2011 IN O.P. NO. 691/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE BRAHMANA SABHA. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED MAY 2ND 2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OPHMA.691/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & N.K.Balakrishnan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(FC).No.1566 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This application is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. 2.The first petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. The second petitioner is their daughter. The mother and daughter sued the father for maintenance. By now, the Family Court granted an order. Aggrieved by the quantum fixed by the Family Court, the mother and daughter filed Mat.Appeal No.456 of 2011 before this Court. It is stated that O.P.No.13 of 2011 is filed by the mother and daughter before the Family Court for certain other reliefs which include monetary claims relatable to gold, ornaments etc. OP(FC)1566/11 -: 2 :- 3.In this original petition under Article 227, the only relief sought for is that the husband should be restrained from selling off properties standing in his name and that the decision of this Court in that regard be communicated to the statutory authorities under the Registration Act. 4.The jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature. The exercise of that power is to keep the courts below within limits of their authority in terms of the statute laws guided by precedents. Also, in exceptional situations of manifest miscarriage of justice, that power could be exercised, if needed. We do not find any such situation in this case. 5.We are, however, inclined to preserve any lawful right of the petitioners to move the court below in O.P.No.13 of 2011 and seek appropriate protective orders by way of attachment or for security as may be available in relation to the OP(FC)1566/11 -: 3 :- plaint claim in O.P.No.13 of 2011, notwithstanding this original petition. We also leave it open to the petitioners to enforce the decree granted in O.P.HMA.No.691 of 2010, since, as of now, we do not find that there is any appeal by the husband against that decree or interdictory order against execution of the decree granted by the Family Court in O.P.HMA.No.691 of 2010. 6.The daughter is around 10 years old and the couple have different allegations among them as of now. In the aforesaid situation, we also record that the attempt of mediation failed at this end. We do so only for the guidance of the court below to appropriately consider whether the case is to be taken up for counselling or other ADR methods. In the result, we extend the interim order of injunction granted by this Court on 29.4.2011 for a period of 45 days from now within which time OP(FC)1566/11 -: 4 :- the petitioners may seek appropriate remedies from O.P.No.13 of 2011 before the Family Court and/or for execution of decree in O.P.HMA.No.691 of 2010. The original petition is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge. Sha/2607