IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 315 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/08/2008 IN CMP 163/2006 IN MC.178/2001 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- DIVAKARAN, S/O. CHOYIKUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, PANNIYOOKKIL, PALAKUTTY, KODUVALLY POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. SEENA D/O. VELAYUDHAN, KAVALANCHERI HOUSE, POOLAKODE, VELLALASSERI POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. ATHUL, S/O. DIVAKARAN, AGED 12 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, -DO- -DO- ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH FOR R1,2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P(F.C)No. 315 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in C.M.P. 163/2006 in M.C. 178/2001. The Family Court by its order enhanced the maintenance to the wife at Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 750/- to the child with effect from 26.8.2008. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that the court did not give an opportunity to establish his plea of mental illness which he has. In order to establish his argument he refers to Ext. B1 produced, which is a Note book issued by the Psychiatric department attached to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. I am able to find from the said Book that there is an indication that the person is suffering from Paranoid Schizophernia. It is true that Schizophernia can occur in intervals and it may not be a permanent disability. But all depends upon the gravity which has to be established. The trial court was not correct when it dismissed the application on the ground holding that he has no such case during the pendency of the main R.P(F.C) 315/2008 -2- maintenance case. Even Ext. B1 would show that the symptoms have started 3-4 years prior to the examination. I am not saying anything about the correctness or genuineness of Ext. B1. But needless to say an opportunity should be given to establish that factum. Therefore I set aside the order under challenge and remit the case back to the Family Court with a direction to permit the petitioner to produce the medical evidence as well as other independent evidence to establish his contentions. Needless to say the wife is also entitled to adduce evidence in counter to the said evidence. The revision petitioner is also directed to pay the amount originally ordered without failure so that the wife and children can survive. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 27.04.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm