IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 152 of 2006() --------------------------------- MC.243/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------- B.THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, KARINGATTIL THEKKETHIL, ANGADICKAL THEKKEKKARA MURI, ANGADICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. THOMAS BABY, KARINGATTIL THEKKETHIL VEEDU, ANGADICKAL THEKKEKARA MURI, ANGADICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. E.K.RAHELAMMA, W/O.THOMAS BABY, KARINGATTIL THEKKETHIL VEEDU, ANGADICKAL THEKKEKARA MURI, ANGADICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR.V.PHILIP MATHEW THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.152 OF 2006 ====================== Dated this the 12nd day of March 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.No.243/2005. The parents moved an application for maintenance against one of the sons and court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each from the date of petition. It is against that decision, the son has come up in revision. The father and son were in Military Service. The only difference is that one retired and other in service at the time of the petition and subsequently retired in 2009. The father is getting a pension of Rs.2,135/- and it is alleged that both the parents are ill and they required larger sum for their existence and hence the application. The Family Court passed an interim order which was not complied with that resulted in non consideration of the objections which ultimately lead to the passing of a final order. The Family Court should have give R.P.(F.C) No.152 OF 2006 2 an opportunity to the party to context the case so that picture would have been clear to decide the quantum. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the Family Court and permit both parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Till a final decision is taken, the revision petitioner shall pay consolidated sum of Rs.1,000/- to the parents. I make it clear that it shall not be a guide line for fixing the quantum. The amount already in deposit, if not withdrawn, to be withdrawn totally by the parents. Let the matter be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 19.4.2010. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns