IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 63 of 2010() --------------------- MC.11/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:- -------------------------------------------- K.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.K.M.ABDUL KHADER, RAHAMANIYA MANZIL, MOGARU NADUMUDI HOUSE, UPPOALA.P.O, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. K.V.SOHAN MS. SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:- ------------------------------- FOUSIYA, D/O.Z.ABDUL KHADER, W/O.K.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, C.A.COTTAGE, NEAR MANJESWAR RAILWAY STATION, MANJESWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ADV. MR. T.B.SHAJIMON FOR R1 MS. GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI FOR R1 MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- R.P. (F.C.) No. 63 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The revision petitioner who was the respondent in M.C. No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragod, challenges the ex parte order dated 05.06.2007 passed against him directing him to pay maintenance to the respondent herein at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month from 05.06.2007, that is the date of the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was purposely evading the service and was therefore rightly set ex parte and he cannot be permitted to assail the impugned order. 4. The fact remains that the petitioner did not participate in the trial and it was on the unchallenged testimony of the respondent examined as PW1 that the court below fixed the quantum of maintenance at Rs.2,500/- per month. I am, therefore, inclined to give the petitioner an opportunity to get R.P.(F.C.) No. 63/2010 : 2 : the ex parte order set aside by filing a petition under the proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. In case the petitioner files an application for setting aside the ex parte order within two weeks from today, the court below shall entertain the application without insisting on the period of limitation of three months under the proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C and dispose of M.C. No. 11 of 2007 on merits after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard. However, his application as aforesaid shall be entertained only on the following conditions:- 1. He shall deposit before the court below a sum of Rs.35,000/- within one month from today towards the arrears of maintenance. 2. He shall continue to deposit before the Family Court or pay to the respondent future maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. This shall be subject to final orders to be passed in the M.C. The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the aforesaid amount as and when deposited. Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv R.P.(F.C.) No. 63/2010 : 3 :