IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 228 of 2006() ----------------------------------- MC.43/2004 of THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- M.G.SAJI, S/O.GOPALAN, MUNDAKKOTTU VEEDU, MANAKKAYAM, PERUNADE VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. BY ADVS.MR. K.RAVIKUMAR SMT.N.N.GIRIJA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SMT.S.SHIJI, NJANDUTHOTTIL, MEENKUZHI, VAYYATTUPUZHA, CHITTAR, RANNY TALUK. 2. AKHILA (MINOR), AGED 12 YEARS, D/O.S.SHIJI, NJANDUTHOTTIL, MEENKUZHI, VAYYATTUPUZHA, CHITTAR, RANNY TALUK, REP. BY HER MOTHER SMT.S.SHIJI. R1 BY ADVS. MR.SATHISH NINAN, MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.11119/2006 IN RPFC. NO.228/2006 DISMISSED 05/01/2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 228 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.43/04. The wife and minor daughter of the counter petitioner therein moved an application for maintenance and the Court below granted Rs.800/- to the wife and Rs.700/- to the daughter. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. A perusal of the order would reveal that the husband has raised a contention that the wife is having 11 cents of property in Perunadu village. Unfortunately the husband has not mounted the box nor did give any evidence in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there was some communication gap between the lawyer and the client and he had made available before me the document of 1999 relating to 11 cents of land and according to him there are rubber trees which yields and that matter has not been taken into consideration R.P.(F.C.) NO. 228 OF 2006 -:2:- by the Family Court while fixing the quantum. He had also referred to another document of 2005 wherein the wife and her mother had purchased property for Rs.60,000/-. It is also a factor indicating the income. But those documents were not produced before Court nor evidence was adduced. Therefore I feel an opportunity can be given. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court for fresh consideration and the parties are permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 8.2.2010 and in case the wife does not appear the husband is directed to take out notice to her for appearance. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-