IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.NO. 49 OF 2009() -------------------------------- MC.255/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------------- 1. SANDHYA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, KIZHAKKOOTT HOUSE, CHERPU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. MINOR ABHIJITH, AGED 10, S/O.IST PETITIONER SANDHYA, KIZHAKKOOTT HOUSE, CHERPU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. MINOR ANUSREE, AGED 4 YEARS, D/O.IST PETITIONER SANDHYA, KIZHAKKOOTT HOUSE, CHERPU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------ 1. VALSALAN, AGED 41, S/O.APPUKKUTTAN, THEKKOOT HOUSE, KARALAM P.O., KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, KARUVANNUR (VIA) TRICHUR DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO.49 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Respondent No.1 though served remains absent. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is in challenge of order dated 12.11.2008 passed by learned Judge of the Family Court, Thrissur in M.C. No.255 of 2007 awarding maintenance to petitioners, wife and two children, aged 34 years, 10 years and 4 years respectively at the rate of R.300/- each per month. Learned counsel contends that without conducting any proper enquiry and merely on the willingness expressed by respondent No.1, maintenance has been awarded which is alarmingly low and not sufficient to sustain the petitioners. 3. It is seen from the order under challenge that no enquiry was conducted in the matter. Learned counsel concedes that respondent had not even filed a counter. What remained is only the petition filed by petitioners in the court below and hence it is not necessary to call for the records of the case. 4. I have perused the copy of the petition produced by counsel for petitioners. It is seen that petitioners claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,500/- R.P(FC) No.49 of 2009 -: 2 :- each per month for petitioner Nos.2 and 3. What is awarded is only Rs.300/- each per month based on the willingness expressed by respondent No.1 to pay maintenance at that rate. I notice that it is without conducting any enquiry as to the needs of petitioners that maintenance was ordered. Therefore the order under challenge cannot be sustained. 5. At the same time the amount offered by respondent No.1 can be treated as interim maintenance payable to the petitioners. Therefore the amount fixed by the learned Judge, Family Court shall be treated as interim maintenance payable to the petitioners by respondent No.1 from the day specified by the learned Judge. Resultantly, this revision succeeds. The order under challenge is set aside and the case is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to respondent No.1 to file his counter if any and giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. Amount awarded by the learned Judge shall be treated as interim maintenance payable to the petitioners in the manner stated above. Parties shall appear in the Family Court, on 10.8.2009. Learned Judge shall expedite the trial and disposal of the case. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv