IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 CRP.No. 320 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/10/2010 IN IA.1418/09 IN LAR.21/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- ARCHANA (MINOR), D/O.LATE KUNDATHI MOHANAN, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER & GUARDIAN SANTHA MOHANAN, RESIDING AT 4A, ENARK APARTMENTS, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SATHYAVATHY, W/O.VAKYATTIL JAYACHANDRAN, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU TALUK. PIN-680 506. 2. SATHEERTHIAN, S/O.KUNDANI NARAYANAN, NANDIPULAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. PIN-691 585. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 680 001. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI SAJEEV FOR R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.320 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011. ORDER Notice to respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for third respondent. 2. This revision is in challenge of order dated October 14, 2010 on I.A.No.1418 of 2011 in L.A.R.No.21 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda. Petitioner who is the natural guardian of a disabled person sought withdrawal of the amount in deposit with the State Bank of Travancore being the amount payable to the disabled person as per award in L.A.R.No.21 of 2001. Learned Sub Judge by the impugned order permitted petitioner, the natural guardian to withdraw the interest that has accrued on the deposit and 10% of `3,50,000/-. According to the petitioner the entire amount should have been allowed to be withdrawn. 3. I have heard learned counsel and gone through the order under challenge. Learned Sub Judge has observed that the deposit was for the benefit and welfare of the disabled person and that in the affidavit in support of the application (I.A.No.1418 of 2011) there were no sufficient details regarding expenses incurred or to be incurred for the disabled person, not to say about any supporting documents and hence the request for withdrawal of (entire) amount cannot be allowed. But having regard to the circumstances learned CRP No.320/2011 2 Additional Sub Judge allowed withdrawal of the interest that has accrued on the deposit and 10% of `3,50,000/-. Having regard to the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge since what was in the mind of learned Additional Sub Judge was the ultimate welfare and interest of the disabled which has to be preserved. 4. So far as any request for withdrawal of the amount in deposit that the petitioner might make in future, for the expenses of the disabled is concerned the impugned order does not foreclose it. If on future occasion withdrawal of any amount is necessary for the expenses of the disabled person it is open to the petitioner to make appropriate request before learned Additional Sub Judge stating details of the expenses incurred or to be incurred and documents if any, in support of any such claim. If any such application with supporting materials is preferred learned Additional Sub Judge shall consider such application and grant appropriate relief as required in the circumstances keeping in mind the welfare and interest of the disabled person. Resultantly with the above direction and observation and reserving that right of petitioner, this civil revision is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks