IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 RPFC.No. 122 of 2011() ---------------------- MC.6/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POOZHIKKUNNEN SALEEM, S/O.MAMMOTTY, POOZHIKKUNNEN HOUSE, KAVUMMANDAM P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD J.DEV, SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAHINA, D/O.YOUSUFF, PUNATHIL HOUSE, PINANGODE P.O., VENGAPPILLY, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 121. 2. MUHAMMED NIYAS, S/O.SHAHINA, AGED 8 YEARS, PUNATHIL HOUSE, PINANGODE P.O., VENGAPPILLY, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 121. 3. MUHAMMED MAJINAS, S/O.SHAHINA, AGED 2 YEARS, PUNATHIL HOUSE, PINANGODE P.O., VENGAPPILLY, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 121. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------------------- R.P(F.C). NO.122 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the sole respondent in M.C.No.6 of 2010 of the Family Court, Kalpetta, which is a proceedings instituted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of the wife and children of the revision petitioner, claiming maintenance. By he impugned order, the Family Court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to each of claimants 1 and 2 and Rs.750/- to the third claimant per month from the date of the petition. It is the above order challenged in this Crl.R.P. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the order impugned. 3. Learned counsel, reiterating the grounds taken in the Crl.R.P., submitted that the order of the court below is liable to be set aside and the respondents herein are not entitled to get maintenance. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the impugned order was passed without hearing the revision petitioner and on that count also, R.P(F.C). NO.122 OF 2011 2 the order impugned is also liable to be set aside. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel and on the perusal of the order impugned, it appears that though the petitioner had appeared before the court below in pursuance to the notice received by him and though he had filed a counter statement, he was subsequently remained absent and thus he was set ex parte. If that be so, I am of the view that at this stage, this Court need not go into the merits of the contention advanced by the learned counsel whereas the petitioner can be relegated to avail his statutory remedy available under Section 125(2) proviso of Cr.P.C. 5. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent, both are Muslim, solemnized according to the Islamic rights. The paternity of claimants 2 and 3 are also not disputed. In this case the impugned order was passed on 31.3.11 and allowed the petition ordering maintenance from the date of the petition. In view of Section 126(2) proviso, the aggrieved person as per the ex parte order can approach the court to set aside the same by showing good reasons and such an application shall be filed within three months from the R.P(F.C). NO.122 OF 2011 3 date thereon. In the present case, three months time will expire by the end of this month. If that be so, the petitioner has got ample time to move the same court by invoking the said provision to set aside the ex parte order, by convincing the court In the result, this revision petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to approach Family Court Kalpetta, by invoking Section 126(2) to set aside the order dated 31.3.2011 in M.C. No.6/2010 of Family Court, Kalpetta and on filing such a petition, it is for the Family Court, Kalpetta to consider the same on merit and to pass appropriate orders in terms of the provisions contained in Section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C. Subject to the above observation and direction this revision petition is disposed of. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. mns