ABDUL KALAM v. SHAILA BEEVI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ch. 9
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act the High Court may on its own motion or otherwise is competent tocall for and examine the records or of any proceeding or anorder under Chapter 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for thepurpose of…
Judgment
M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.30032 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 12th day of February, 2009JUDGMENTThis writ petition is preferred with a prayer to callfor the records and to set aside Exts.P1 and P3 orders. Heardlearned counsel for both sides.
Ext.P3 is an ex parte order passed inM.C.No.183 of 2005 whereby the writ petitioner herein isordered to pay maintenance to the petitioners 1 to 3 atRs.750/- each per month from the date of the petition, i.e.23.11.2004. The said order had been passed on 21.3.2007. Itis to set aside that ex parte order, I.A.142 of 2007 inM.C.No.183 of 2005 has been filed and by virtue of Ext.P1 orderdated 27.11.2007 the Family Court had dismissed it also fordefault without costs. Now it is to set aside Exts.P1 and P3 thepresent writ petition is filed.
Operative part
Under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act the High Court may on its own motion or otherwise is competent tocall for and examine the records or of any proceeding or anorder under Chapter 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for thepurpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality orpropriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order and as W.P.(C) No.30032 of 20082to the legality of such proceeding. So an order passed under Chapter 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is revisable if it isnot an order of interlocutory in nature. Now the question willbe whether a petition to set aside an ex parte order passedagainst an order of maintenance is an interlocutory order ornot. By dismissal of the application what the court does is toput a final seal on the ex parte order. Thereby the orderpassed by the court attains finality. So an order passed eitherallowing or dismissing to set aside an ex parte order also willhave all the clippings of a final order which is not ofinterlocutory in nature and, therefore, Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act enables the High Court to consider it on therevisional jurisdiction. When the revisional jurisdiction isprovided, the petition shall not lie or can be entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore this petitionis dismissed making it clear that the writ petitioner will be atliberty to file a revision petition, if so advised, in accordancewith law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGEvns
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ch. 9; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 12 Feb 2009. The bench was M N KRISHNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.