IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP (FC).No. 273 of 2010(P)
1. SHEEBA D/O.SANTHA, MANGULATHY MELE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIJAYAN,S/O.RAJAYYAN NADAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :11/10/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.(F.C.) No.273 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant J.,
The petitioner in this Writ Petition is the petitioner in O.P.
No. 253 of 2005 pending before the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. It is submitted that the prayer in that original
petition was for a decree for maintenance. It was later amended to
include the prayer to set aside the release deed. Still later another
application was filed to incorporate a prayer to claim recovery of 35
sovereign of gold ornaments or its value. Those prayers were
allowed. The mater at long last crept into the list and it was posted
for evidence. At that stage, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application
to incorporate a further amendment to the petition. The amendment
sought for was to include in the petition a schedule giving details of
the 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The Court below, by the
impugned order, did not allow the said prayer and proceeded to
pass Ext.P5 order.
O.P.(F.C.) No.273 of 2010 2
2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
order and wants this Court to invoke the extra ordinary
constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3. We must say that we are not persuaded to invoke such
extra ordinary jurisdiction to interfere with Ext.P5 order.
Perversity, non application of mind or failure of justice are not
vices that we can perceive in the impugned order. We further note
that even without a specific schedule the petitioner is in law entitled
to adduce evidence of the details of the 35 sovereigns of gold
ornaments which she now wants to claim return of. The rejection
of the prayer for amendment does not in any way result in failure or
mis carriage of justice.
4. This Writ petition in these circumstances is dismissed.
We make it clear that disposal of this petition will not in any way
fetter the rights of the petitioner to adduce evidence about the
details of 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments to be recovered and
which is claimed in O.P. No. 253 of 2005, as it stands after
amendment.
O.P.(F.C.) No.273 of 2010 3
5. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the learned counsel
for the petitioner for immediate production before the Family
Court.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE
dl/