Review vs By Advs
2021 Latest Caselaw 10438 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                  &

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

     FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943

               R.P.No.300 OF 2021 IN OP (FC). 411/2020

    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (FC) 411/2020 DATED 09.03.2021

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1/PETITIONER IN I.A.

              DEEPA, W/O.LATE MAHESH KUMAR E.A.,
              AGED 33 YEARS, IDATHOTTY HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O.,
              NEDUNGAPRA KARA, VENGOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU
              THALUK, ERNAKULAM-683542.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.SINU.G.NATH
              SHRI.TONY GEORGE THOMAS
              SHRI.APPU T.S.
              SMT. AKSHARA SHYAM
              SMT. ADARSA P.M.

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS:
      1.      REMANI, W/O.ABHIMANYU, AGED 60 YEARS,
              EDATHOTTY HOUSE, NEDUNGAPRA KARA, VENGOOR VILLAGE,
              KUNNATHUNADU THALUK, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683545.

      2       ABHIMANYU, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 66 YEARS, EDATHOTTY
              HOUSE, NEDUNGAPRA KARA, VENGOOR VILLAGE,
              KUNNATHUNADU THALUK, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683545.


      3       THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH,
              PERUMBAVOOR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683542.

      4       THE MANAGER, UNION BANK, NEDUNGAPRA BRANCH,
              NEDUNGAPRA, PERUMBAVOOR-683545.

              BY ADV.SRI.JITHESH MENON
              BY ADV.SRI.ASP KURUP
              BY ADV.SRI.S.RANJITH

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.300/2021                       2




                                    ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of March 2021 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The review petitioner is the respondent in the

original petition. The dispute is in regard to the gold

ornaments. The respondents failed to appear before this

Court in spite of service of notice through her counsel.

2. Taking note of the submissions at the Bar, this

Court ordered to keep the entire gold ornaments she

obtained from the bank in a locker. This Court also

directed the Family Court to appoint an Advocate

Commissioner to keep it in the locker and ordered to

keep the key before the Family Court.

3. It is submitted by the review petitioner that

the only dispute is in regard to the nine sovereigns of

gold ornaments and that the claim of the respondents is

only for 1/4th of the nine sovereigns of gold ornaments.

According to the respondents, they are entitled to 3/4th

of nine sovereigns of gold ornaments. It seems that the

review petitioner had obtained release of 143.13 grams

based on the order of the Family Court.

We are of the view that nine sovereigns of gold

ornaments shall be in the locker as ordered by this

Court. The release of nine sovereigns of gold ornaments

will be subject to further orders of the Family Court.

We review the judgment accordingly. The Family Court is

directed to desist from taking coercive steps for a

period of one week to enable the review petitioner to

comply with this order.

The review petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

ln