BOBBY PAULOSE Vs. RONIA MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. Interlocutory orders passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam have been subjected to challenge. I.A. No. 1508 of 2005 in O.P. No. 1308 of 2004 and I.A. No. 1507 of 2005 in O.P. No. 1309 of 2004, respectively Exts. P2 and P3 in W.P. (C) No. 18274 of 2006. They appear to be one and the same order. Certain remittances were ordered, as payable by the husband, who has the petitioner in O.P. Nos. 1308 and 1309 of 2004. The interlocutory applications had been filed under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act. We find that a realistic approach had been made by the Family Court, and interference at this stage is not called for.

(2.) At the time of admission of W.P. (C) No. 18274 of 2006, interim order had been passed, simultaneously taking notice of certain deposits made by the petitioner in connected pending matters. The apparent idea was that the wife is not put to prejudice, since the matter was being indefinitely adjourned because of the inconvenience of the husband. We direct that whatever payments made are liable to be adjusted appropriately when the matter is given final shape by the Family Court, as the orders do not suffer from want of jurisdiction or any other grounds urged.

(3.) W.P. (C) No. 18274 of 2006 is, therefore, dismissed.