IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 438 of 2009() ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 862/2009 IN MC.148/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------- PANGATTU MUHAMMED, S/O.UNEEN, AREEKKAT PARAMB, MOONNIYUR (PO), TIRURANGADI. BY ADVS. MR.T.A.SHAIN MR.K.R.SHYNE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. HAFSATH, D/O.HANEEFA, KANNAMANGALAM, MEMATTUPARA, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.Gopinathan, J. ========================================== R.P.(F.C.)No.438 of 2009 ========================================== Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009. ORDER 1.The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.148 of 2009, a petition filed by the respondent, the wife of the revision petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Malappuram. He remained ex-parte. Consequently, by order dated 14.5.2009, that petition was allowed and the revision petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent. 2.The revision petitioner filed C.M.P.862 of 2009 before the trial court seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order. By order dated 20.10.2009, that petition was allowed on condition that the revision petitioner deposits Rs.7,000/- towards the cost of the respondent on RPFC438/09 -:2:- or before 30.10.2009. The revision petitioner, according to the learned counsel, could not deposit the amount because of the financial difficulties. Consequently, C.M.P.862 of 2009 was dismissed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of that order, this revision petition was filed. 3.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the order of the lower court directing the revision petitioner to deposit Rs.7,000/- towards cost is very high and onerous and that for failure to comply with an onerous order, the revision petitioner was denied justice. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it would be quite appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the revision petitioner on conditions. RPFC438/09 -:3:- In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned would stand modified to the effect that the petition, C.M.P.862 of 2009 would stand allowed on condition that the revision petitioner deposits Rs.15,000/- towards the maintenance payable to the respondent by the impugned order within one month. In the event the revision petitioner fails to deposit the amount, this revision petition would stand dismissed. In the event the revision petitioner succeeds before the lower court, the payment made shall be adjusted as the costs of the respondent. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. sl.