IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944 O.P.(FC) NO. 523 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2022 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN O.P.NOs.878 OF 2017, 889 OF 2017, 963 OF 2017 AND M.C.NO.288 OF 2013 OF THE FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS:

1 MUHAMMED SAJEER, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, SHAFEEQUE MANZIL, AYYAMPAKI, KALLAMPARAM, PERUMUGHAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673631.

2 AMINA, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, SHAFEEQUE MANZIL, AYYAMPAKI, KALLAMPARAM, PERUMUGHAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673631.

3 FATHIMA SHAFEEQUE, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, SHAFEEQUE MANZIL, AYYAMPAKI, KALLAMPARAM, PERUMUGHAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673631.

BY ADV K.RAKESH RESPONDENT:

SUFAINA M.M.

AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. HASSAN KUTTY, MALAYIL MARAKKATTIL, VATTAPPARAMBU, CHALIYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673001.

BY ADVS.

MUHAMMED SHAFI M T.RASINI THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioners are the respondents in O.P.No.878 of

2017 and connected cases on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode. As per the judgment/order dated 12.10.2021, O.P.No.878 of 2017 and connected cases, namely, O.P.Nos.879 & 963 of 2017 and M.C.No.288 of 2017 were allowed ex parte. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking to set aside the said common judgment/order. The Family Court, Kozhikode dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2021 holding that there was no sufficient reason to set aside the ex parte judgment/order. The said order dated 23.03.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 (Ext.P4) is under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. When the matter was filed, the Registry raised an objection that the impugned order was appealable, in our view, rightly. We have considered the matter on the judicial side and on finding that there occurred a palpable error in entertaining a common interlocutory application for setting aside judgment/order in four distinct cases, we, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has directed the Registry to number the Original Petition.

3. On 02.09.2022, notice on admission was directed to be served on the respondent. An interim stay as prayed for was granted for a period of one month.

4. Today, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the reasons stated for dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2021 are untenable and the said order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel however concedes that it was quite incorrect and not allowed in law to file a single interlocutory application to set aside the judgment/order in four cases. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that despite ordering payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- from May 2017 onwards, the 1^st petitioner-husband has not hitherto paid any amount and without giving any heed to the order directing payment of monthly maintenance, the petitioners approached this Court. Their intention is to protract the matter and to deny the respondent-wife even the monthly maintenance, which is absolutely necessary for her sustenance.

7. As per the common judgment/order dated

12.10.2021, the Family Court, Kozhikode, allowed O.P.Nos.878, 879 and 963 of 2017 and also M.C.No.288 of 2017. O.P.No.878 of 2017 was filed by the respondent seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage between herself and the 1^st petitioner. O.P.No.879 of 2017 was filed by the respondent seeking maintenance, which was allowed ordering payment of Rs.10,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance and Rs.3,60,000/- towards past maintenance. O.P.No.963 of 2017 was filed seeking a direction to return gold ornaments