IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 RPFC.No. 384 of 2009() ------------------------------------ [AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/07/2009 IN CMP/462/2009 IN MC.276/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED RAISA BHAI, S/O.MUHAMMED, NOORULLA SAHIB, HOUSE NO.152, MUSLIMPUR, VANIYAMBADI, VELUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- THASLEEMA, D/O.KUNHUMUHAMMED, KIZHAKKUMPARAMBA, VETTATHOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10 /2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------- R.P(FC) NO. 384 OF 2009 -------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 ORDER --------- Revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C No. 276 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. The respondent herein filed M.C No. 276 of 2007 before the trial court seeking an order of maintenance @ Rs. 2000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner remained ex-parte. Consequently that petition was allowed by order dated 10-10-2007 whereby revision petitionere was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. The revision petitioner later filed two petitions as C.M.P No. 462 of 2009 and 463 of 2009. C.M.P. 462 of 2009 is filed seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order in M.C No. 276 of 2007. In filing that petition there is a delay of 552 days. Seeking an order to condone the delay C.M.P No.463 of 2009 was filed. By common order dated 29-7-2009, trial court dismissed both petitions. R.P(FC) NO. 384 OF 2009 2 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of that order this revision petition was filed. Today when the revision petition came up for admission, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that subsequent to the order dated 10-10-2007 in M.C No. 276 of 2007, the revision petitioner divorced the respondent and knowing the divorce respondent had preferred a petition under Muslim Women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act and that the petition for execution of the order in M.C No. 276 of 2007 is pending before the trial court and coercive steps are ahead. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner conceded that the amount granted by the trial court is not exorbitant. But his contention is that revision petitioner is not liable to pay maintenance after divorce especially when respondent had filed petition under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act. In the event respondent had filed such a petition, revision petitioner is entitled to apply for alteration of the order in M.C. 276 of 2007 under section 127 of the Code of R.P(FC) NO. 384 OF 2009 3 Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner can approach the trial court for altering the order. In the above circumstances, I find no merit in the revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed with liberty to apply for alteration under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner is granted time till 30-11-2009. Till then coercive steps in M.C No. 276 of 2007 for realization of arrears subsequent to divorce shall be kept in abeyance. Petition, if any filed shall be disposed of at the earliest by the trial court before initiating further coercive steps. P.S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE PKK