IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 RPFC.No. 46 of 2011() --------------- MC.278/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA ............. PETITIONER / RESPONDENT : ----------------------------------------- VASANTHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, SARATHYIL, KRISHNAPURAM, WEST MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE FROM KANNELATHARAYIL OF DO. DO., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. BINDU, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.SYAMALA, SHYAMALAYAM VEETTIL, EDAKKUNNAM MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE - 690 504. 2. VISHAL, AGED 12, S/O.VASANTHAN, SYAMALA, SHYAMALAYAM VEETTIL, EDAKKUNNAM MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE-690 504. 3. VARSH, AGED 7 YEARS, D/O.VASANTHAN, SYAMALA, SHYAMALAYAM VEETTIL, EDAKKUNNAM MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE-690504. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P (F.C) No.46 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November 2011 ORDER Challenge in the revision is against the order of maintenance passed by the Judge, Family Court, Alappuzha in M.C No.278/2006, by the respondent in such proceedings. Claimants in the proceedings are admittedly the wife and two children of the aforesaid respondent. An exparte order of maintenance was passed by the court below awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to the claimants from the respondent. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is assailed in this revision. 2. Notice given, the respondents in the revision/the claimants in the proceedings before the court below have entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. The order passed by the court below, allowing maintenance to the respondents, not being one on merits, an opportunity be extended to the revision petitioner/husband to contest the matter and to have a disposal of the proceedings afresh on merits, is the submission made by his counsel. In a parallel proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, he is at R.P(F.C) No.46 OF 2011 2 present paying maintenance at the rate fixed by the court to his wife and child, is the submission of the counsel. Strongly opposing the request for remission of the case setting aside the impugned order, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after the spouses fell apart a claim petition for maintenance was made in 2001. Pursuant thereto, after some mediation talks and conciliation efforts, such proceedings were not continued. Later, when there was neglect from the respondent to maintain the wife and children, they preferred the present case in which the respondent after entering appearance did not file any objections and ultimately he was set exparte. Revision petitioner, the respondent in the M.C, is an ex-service man who is having other income over and above his pension, according to the counsel. Pointing out that the maintenance awarded is only Rs.1,000/- per claimant, it is submitted that there is no ground for interfering with the order of the court below solely for the reason that it has been passed exparte. 4. Going through the order passed by the court below and taking note of the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find that the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with for the sole reason it has been passed exparte. If at all there was any sustainable ground for setting aside the exparte order within the R.P(F.C) No.46 OF 2011 3 time permitted by law, the revision petitioner could have approach the court below and moved for setting aside that order to have a decision on its merits. The mere fact that a revision has been entertained after condoning the delay, which was more than of one year, would not by itself enable the petitioner to seek for setting aside the order unless there are justifiable circumstances in his favour, entitling him to have a fresh consideration of the case after vacating the order impugned. The facts and circumstances presented in the case would show that an exparte order happened to be passed against the revision petitioner on account of his wilful default and culpable latches. When such be the case and more so where the quantum of maintenance fixed is found to be just and reasonable and not at all excessive, I find, exercise of revisional jurisdiction to interfere with such order is not possible. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge