BINIL KUMAR Vs. MINIMOL ALIAS MINI ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.P.No.1049 of 2009 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla, was filed by the 1st respondent/wife claiming amounts from her husband and mother in law. Both did not appear before the court below. The court below proceeded to pass the impugned exparte order.

(2.) The petitioner is another son of the mother in law of the claimant, against whom the claim was made. According to him, his mother, ie. the mother in law of the claimant, ie. the 2nd respondent in O.P.No.1049 of 2009, suffers from mental disability. She is unable to defend the claim. He had therefore filed an application to get a next friend appointed to enable the 2nd respondent to effectively defend the claim against her. The court below rejected the same. The petitioner, as the next friend of the 2nd respondent, claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Instead of filing either an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C to get the exparte order against the 2nd respondent set aside or filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act as the next friend of the 2nd respondent to assail the impugned order, the petitioner has chosen to file this original petition.

(3.) After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on being asked as to why the petitioner is resorting to such course, complains that the petitioner does not expect anything better even if the impugned order were sought to be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C by the petitioner acting as the guardian of the 2nd respondent. In that event, only the remedy of an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act may be available to the petitioner as the next friend of the 2nd respondent, it is submitted.