IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 191 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.251/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/CR.PETITIONER IN MC. --------------------------------------------------------- T.V.ABRAHAM, AGED 56 YEARS, THARAYIL VEEDU, THARAYIL MUKKU BHAGOM MALLAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SARAMMA ABRAHAM, AGED 40 YEARS, MANALIL VEEDU, NOOROMMAVU P.O., ANICKADU MURI, ANICKADU VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. 2. JIBU VARGHESE, S/O.SARAMMA ABRAHAM, DO., MINOR IS RESPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE MOTHER. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 191 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has suffered an ex parte order directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- (total Rs.3,500/-) per mensem to his wife and child. He is said to be a person who is employed abroad. The petitioner denies that assertion. Be that as it may, the order has been passed ex parte. There was only the evidence of the claimant/wife as P.W.1. The petitioner wants to challenge the order. 2. What is the ground? The short ground raised that the petitioner has been set ex parte without proper and effective service of the notice on the petitioner. This is incorrect. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inasmuch as the petitioner has been set ex parte incorrectly, that order is liable to be set aside. The order shows that the petitioner was set ex R.P.(FC) No. 191 of 2008 -: 2 :- parte. I have no reason, on the face of the order, to assume that he was set ex parte without any valid cause. If the petitioner has a case that he was set ex parte without any valid cause, the petitioner must certainly go before the court which set him ex parte and request that court to invoke the provisions enabling that court to set aside ex parte order. The petitioner must seek directions in such application to set aside the ex parte order. Instead of doing that, the petitioner has taken the next bus to come to this Court. 3. The question whether he has been set ex parte properly or not must certainly be decided by the court concerned on the basis of the materials to be placed before it. At the moment and with the available inputs it is not possible or necessary for this Court at this first instance to undertake that responsibility. I find no reason for this Court now to set aside the ex parte order passed against the petitioner. 4. I am of opinion, in these circumstances, that it is for the petitioner to go before the Family Court and attempt to get the ex parte order passed against him set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to do that. Why then has he come before this Court? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is sought to be R.P.(FC) No. 191 of 2008 -: 3 :- executed and a warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner must certainly go before the court concerned and seek the withdrawal of the warrant. He may abide by the conditions that the court below may impose on him. If he is aggrieved by any such conditions imposed, he can certainly approach this Court to challenge the said condition imposed. At any rate, at the moment, I find absolutely no justification in the prayer to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. 5. This R.P.(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed; but with the observation that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to go before the Family Court and claim to get the ex parte order passed against him set aside in accordance with law including the law relating to limitation. The petitioner can apply that the execution of the order may be suspended till a decision is taken on his application to set aside the order. The learned Judge of the Family Court must consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and on appropriate terms. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 191 of 2008 -: 4 :-