Biju K. v. Pournami V.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/6TH PHALGUNA, 1936 UNNUMB.RP(FC)......OF 2014 () (ZR.P.(FC).NO.2793 OF 2014) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 140/2011 of FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 17-09-2013 REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
-------------------------------------------- BIJU K., AGED 41 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, BIJU BHAVAN, CHUNDAVILAKOM VENPAKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS SRI.GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:
--------------------------------
1. POURNAMI V., AGED 27 YEARS D/O.VASANTHAKUMARI, POURNAMI MANDIRAM, KULATHUMMEL KATTAKKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572
2. UTHARA.P (MINOR), AGED 6 YEARS REPRESENTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT, POURNAMI MANDIRAM KULATHUMMEL, KATTAKKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572 R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.MAJIDA.S R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJIKHAN.M THIS UNNUMBERED RPFC HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
========================== R.P.(F.C) No......... OF 2014 (ZR.P.(F.C).No.2793 OF 2014) ========================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2015
ORDER
This revision petition is sought to be registered against the order dated 17.9.2013 in M.C.No.140 of 2011 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is filed with a delay of 69 days. This Court passed an order on 23.09.2014 in Crl.M.A.No.2793 of 2014 viz., the petition filed for condoning the delay. It was made clear thereunder that though this Court was not fully satisfied with the reason assigned for the delay, taking a lenient view, delay was ordered to stand condoned on condition that the petitioner pays `1000/- to the respondents within one month from that day. The amount directed to be paid has not so far been paid. When this matter was taken up for consideration on 23.2.2015, there was no representation for the petitioner. Same situation continues even when the matter is taken up
for consideration today. That apart, the cost directed to be paid still remains unpaid. In such circumstances, Crl.M.A.No.2793 of 2014 filed for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition stands rejected. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010