IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 303 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.253/2006 of FAMILY COURT THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ REGHU, USHA MANDIRAM, MURINJAKAL P.O., KARINKUDUKKA MURI, V.KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KONNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT/PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------------------------- 1. LATHAKUMARI, D/O KARUNAKARAN, THOTTUMMALAM PUTHEPURAYIL VEEDU, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAROOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. VISHNU NARAYANAN, (MINOR), S/O.LATHAKUMARI, DO. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BENNY VARGHESE SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN FOR R1 SRI.R.SUDHISH FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.303 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 3rd day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of Family Court Thiruvalla in M.C.No.253/2006. The wife and minor child moved an application for maintenance against the revision petitioner and the court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month payable from the date of petition. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. It can be seen from the materials available that there was a direction to pay interim maintenance and the revision petitioner did not pay the same and further he had chosen to remain exparte and so the court proceeded to pass as exparte order. It is contended that the husband is having a landed property and income and they will be able to produce materials to establish that fact. It is also seen that he is an employee of the State Farming Corporation and get some salary. It was also found that he is having one acre of land. All these matters requires R.P.(F.C) No.303 OF 2007 2 reconsideration for the reason that no finding can be entered into without hearing him. Therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity. So the order passed by the Family Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The revision petitioner shall continue to pay at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife and child till a final decision is taken in the order. If there is consecutive default of 2 months the Family Court is given the liberty to strike out the defence of the revision petitioner. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns