Kerala High Court
Sojulekshmi N.S vs Mahesh Kumar R on 5 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942
RP.No.28 OF 2021 IN Mat.Appeal. 333/2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Mat.Appeal 333/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 20/5/2020
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
SOJULEKSHMI N.S
AGED 30 YEARS
D/O. R.SOMADEVAN, SIVASAKTHI, KURISUMOODU P.O.,
CHETTIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM
BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3:
1 MAHESH KUMAR R
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, MAHESH BHAVAN, MAVOOR, KUDAVATOOR
P.O., ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA 691 509
2 KAMALAMMA
W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, MAHESH BHAVAN, MAVOOR,
KUDAVATTOOR P.O.,
ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE,
KOTTARAKKARA 691 509
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C.S. MANU
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2021, ALONG WITH RP.44/2021, RP.55/2021, RP.57/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.28/2021 in
Mat.Appeal No.333/2012
-:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942
RP.No.44 OF 2021 IN Mat.Appeal. 309/2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Mat.Appeal 309/2011 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 20/5/2020
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SOJULEKSHMI N.S
AGED 30 YEARS
D/O. R. SOMADEVAN, SIVASAKTHI, KURISUMOODU P.O,
CHETTIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM 686 104
BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:
1 MAHESH KUMAR R
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, MAHESH BHAVAN, MAVOOR,
KUDAVATOOR P.O, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE,
KOTTARAKKARA 691 509
2 N. RAMACHANDRAN,
MAVOOR, KUDAVATOOR P.O, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE,
KOTTARAKKARA 691 509
RP No.28/2021 in
Mat.Appeal No.333/2012
-:3:-
3 KAMALAMMA,
W/O. N. RAMACHANDRAN, MAVOOR, KUDAVATTOOR P.O,
ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA 691 509
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C.S. MANU
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2021, ALONG WITH RP.28/2021, RP.55/2021, RP.57/2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.28/2021 in
Mat.Appeal No.333/2012
-:4:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942
RP.No.55 OF 2021 IN Mat.Appeal. 311/2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Mat.Appeal 311/2011 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 20/5/2020
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SOJULEKSHMI N.S
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. R. SOMADEVAN, SIVASAKTHI, KURISUMOODU P.O,
CHETTIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT:
MAHESH KUMAR R
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, MAHESH BHAVAN, MAVOOR,
KUDAVATOOR P.O, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE,
KOTTARAKKARA-691 509
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C. S. MANU
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2021, ALONG WITH RP.28/2021, RP.44/2021, RP.57/2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.28/2021 in
Mat.Appeal No.333/2012
-:5:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942
RP.No.57 OF 2021 IN Mat.Appeal. 310/2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Mat.Appeal 310/2011 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 20/5/2020
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
1 SOJULEKSHMI N.S
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.R.SOMADEVAN, SIVASAKTHI, KURISUMOODU P.O,
CHETTIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:
1 MAHESH KUMAR R.,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, MAHESH BHAVAN, MAVOOR,
KUDAVATOOR P.O., ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE,
KOTTARAKKARA-691509.
2 RAMADEVI,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O.R.SOMADEVAN, SIVASAKTHI, KURISUMOODU P.O.,
CHETTIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM.
RP No.28/2021 in
Mat.Appeal No.333/2012
-:6:-
3 R.SOMADEVAN,
AGED 69 YEARS
SIVASAKTHI, KURISUMOODU P.O., CHETTIPUZHA
VILLAGE, CHANAGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM AND NOW
RESIDING AT ALCOR ALIBA GROUP, DOHA,
P.B.NO.60429.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C. S. MANU
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2021, ALONG WITH RP.28/2021, RP.44/2021, RP.55/2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.28/2021 in
Mat.Appeal No.333/2012
-:7:-
ORDER
[RP. No.28/2021 in Mat.Appeal No.333/2012,
RP No.44/2021 in Mat.Appeal No.309/2011,
RP No.55/2021 in Mat.Appeal No.311/2011 &
RP No. 57/2021 in Mat.Appeal No.310/2011]
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2021
Shaffique, J.
These review petitions have been filed inter alia contending
that the amount awarded by the Family Court as value of the gold
ornaments was not the actual value as on the date of decree.
Review petitioner submits that an application has been filed to
amend the Original Petition in order to allow the realisation of
value of the gold ornaments as on the date of recovery. There is
no dispute about the fact that in the application filed for recovery
of gold ornaments, the relief sought for with reference to the gold
ornaments is as under:-
"119 sovereigns of gold ornaments worth `8,33,000/-".
2. In the statement of account also, the total claim
regarding gold ornaments was shown as `8,33,000/-. The Court
below found that the petitioner wife is entitled for 90 sovereigns
RP No.28/2021 in
Mat.Appeal No.333/2012
of gold ornaments, which had been confirmed and therefore
proportionate decree had been granted. This Court had also
confirmed the said decree.
3. These review petitions have been filed inter alia
contending that the application for amendment was not
considered while delivering the judgment. The matter was
pending before this Court since 2011 and the application for
amendment was filed only in 2019. There is substantial delay on
the part of the appellant/review petitioner in filing the application
for amendment. However, no orders are seen passed in the said
amendment application. Even if the amendment application is
considered, the relief sought for in the amendment could not
have been allowed especially in a case where the review
petitioner had only claimed the value of gold ornaments.
4. This is a case in which the review petitioner/appellant
had sought for value of the gold ornaments and no claim was
made for return of the gold ornaments or its equivalent value.
Under such circumstances, when the claim is limited, there was
justification on the part of the Family Court to grant a decree as
RP No.28/2021 in
Mat.Appeal No.333/2012
claimed. While determining the same, we have not committed
any error.
Under such circumstances, the review petitions are
dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
Rp True Copy JUDGE
PS to Judge
