VIJAYAKUMARI Vs. RAMA KRISHNA PILLAI KATTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant/wife in a claim for money before the Family Court has filed this review petition. Her husband, (the 1st respondent in the O.P (O.S) before the court below) had filed Mat.Appeal No.162 of 2010 to challenge the order granting her reliefs. When that appeal came up for hearing, it was noted that the impugned order was one passed without the participation of the appellant/husband before the court below. After discussions at the bar, the learned counsel for the appellant had chosen to withdraw the appeal. This Court accordingly proceeded to pass the order/judgment dated 29.09.2010. The operative portion of which in para.4 reads as follows:

(2.) The petitioner, the 1st respondent in the appeal, has now come up before this Court with a petition to review that order. The contention of the petitioner is that as a matter of fact the order impugned in the Mat.Appeal is not an exparte order.

(3.) Para.4 of the order/judgment dated 29.09.2010 extracted above makes it clear that we have not directed the court below to allow the application to set aside the exparte order, if any, filed. The contentions which otherwise would be available to the petitioner can be raised before the court below if any such application to set aside the exparte order is filed. We are satisfied that the impugned order need not now be reviewed, but it can be clarified that the order/judgment dated 29.09.2010 shall not preclude the petitioner herein from raising any contention - including the contention that Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C is not applicable to the factual situations, before the Family Court.