IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2856 of 2011(R) --------------------------- I.A.NO.310/2010 IN MC.107/2006 of FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER:PETITIONER:CR.PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------------- KISHORE, S/O.SADANANDAN,PUTHUKARY VAYAL THITTA VEEDU, CHIRAYINKEEZH DESOM,SARKARA VILLAGE,NOW WORKING IN PERSIA,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BABU,B/O.KISHORE. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): CR.PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SHYJA,D/O.SASIDHARAN, T.C.29/698, SEEVELI NAGAR, PALKULANGARA,PETTAH VILLAGE. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OP(FC) NO.2856/2011 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION M.C.107/2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 2.6.2006. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.107/2006 DATED 31.5.2010. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, I.A.310/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED-24.7.2010 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO I.A.310/2010,DATED 9.2.2011. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE B DIARY IN M.C.107/2006 EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.310/2010 IN M.C.107/2006 DATED 16.6.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- O.P.(F.C)No.2856 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is by the respondent in a proceeding instituted by his wife and six year old daughter for maintenance. He suffered an ex parte order under section 125 Cr.P.C. His application to set aside that ex parte order stands allowed on condition as to payment of one half of the arrears of maintenance ordered as per the original order. Imposition of that condition is under challenge. 2. The order for maintenance is in favour of the wife and daughter aged six years. The amount of maintenance ordered as per the original order is Rs.3,500/- per month. The impugned order imposing the condition of payment of one half of that is neither in excess of jurisdiction nor is palpably perverse warranting the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court being exercised. We do not want to comment on the quantum of maintenance fixed since, that may be open for O.P(F.C).No.2856/2011 2 consideration following the impugned Ext.P6 order, on further adjudication of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. We also note that by judgment in O.P.(F.C)No.3194 of 2011 the petitioner's contentions arising from the same matter had also found its waterloo. Either way, we do not find any ground to exercise the authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this O.P.(F.C) fails and is dismissed in limine. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/17.10.11