IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 437 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.260/2001 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------- KUNHIMON, S/O. KOTTINGAL BAVU, PUNNAHIRUTHI DESOM, PONNANI NAGARAM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.C.V.MANUVILSAN, MR.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) MR.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN MR.P.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. JAMEELA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. KAVUPPADATH ABU, VATTAMKULAM AMSOM, UDINIKKARA DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. MUFSINA, AGED 6 YEARS, DAUGHTER (MINOR), (MINOR PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.SAMSUDIN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.11058/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.37/07 DISMISSED 4/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 437 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.260/01. The revision was filed with a considerable delay and this court by order dated 18.10.07 considering the averments in support of the petition allowed the condonation of delay. 2. Now the order under challenge is an exparte order. It can be seen that notice which was sent to him by registered post was returned with the endorsement that he had left India. Then publication was effected in Madhyamam Daily. It is true that publication is effected but when a person is working in gulf country and if it is published in a local daily one cannot be sure whether it reaches that place. The purport and object of publication, notice etc. are to put the party to the personal knowledge about the materials. I am afraid that it has not been done and therefore interest of justice requires that a chance has to be given to the revision petitioner herein. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 437 OF 2007 -:2:- Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunity to both the parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. The revision petitioner shall continue to deposit at the rate of Rs.1,000/- as ordered by this Court as per an interim order till a final decision is taken in the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 8.4.2010. In any event if the wife does not appear on that day, notice be taken out to her so that the matter can be disposed of after hearing both the sides. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-