IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 RPFC.No. 16 of 2011() -------------------------- MC.533/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- JIJO JOSEPH, S/O.P.J.JOSEPH, POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, THAVALAM POST, MANNARKKAD VIA., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ 1. BINDU JOSEPH, D/O.V.M.JOSEPH, VAYALUNGAL HOUSE, KALKKUMDU POST, KARUVARAKKUNDU, MALAPPURAM. 2. ANU JOSEPH, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT), DO. DO. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C) No.16 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011. O R D E R The challenge in this revision petition is against the order dated 19.04.2010 in M.C. No.533/2006 by which the Family Court, Malappuram restored its earlier order dated 30.05.2007 in M.C. No.533/2006 by with the Family Court, directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the claimant that to the wife at the rate of `.2,000/- and to the daughter at the rate of `.1,300/- per month. 2. I have heard Shri.Roy Chacko, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. I have also perused the order impugned and also the Annexure-A1, judgment of this court. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, though this court by Annexure-A1 order remanded the matter for fresh consideration, by R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011 2 permitting the contesting parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence, how the Family Court issued an order, restoring its earlier order, though the same was set aside by this court in R.P.(F.C) No.331/2007 as per Annexure - A1 order. Though this court directed the Family Court to consider the matter afreshly, the said Court has not complied with the direction of this court and without granting opportunity to the revision petitioner, the same has disposed of. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly conceded that, there was default on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the Family Court on the date fixed by this court in the Anenxure - A1 order and the same was not willful but due to the reasons beyond his control. 4. I have carefully consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011 3 petitioner and the order passed by this court by Annexure-A1 judgment and also the order impugned in this revision petition. Admittedly, vide Annexure-A1 order, after hearing the parties including the contesting respondent this court has set aside the original order in M.C. No.533/2006, after having satisfied that, it is just and proper to grant opportunities to the parties concerned to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence. But the order now passed by the Family Court shows that, the Family Court has simply restored the earlier order and there is no reconsideration of the issues on the basis of the evidence permitted to be adduced by this court. From the order of the learned Family Court, it can be seen that, though the petitioner herein was directed to appear before the Family Court on 19.04.2010, vide Annexure-A1 judgment, he failed to appear in the court, though the proceedings has R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011 4 postponed till 5 p.m on 19.04.2010. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there were no willful latches or negligence on the part of the revision petitioner but because of the reasons beyond his control, the revision petitioner could not appear before the family court. 5. However, by the above proceedings, it can be seen that the petitioner was prosecuting his grievances and this court after having satisfied that the original order passed by the Family court is not sustainable, set aside its earlier order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration that to after permitting the parties to adduce evidence. But the above direction of this court is not seen materialized, probably due to the absence of the revision petitioner. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the revision R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011 5 petitioner to have a disposal of the matter pending before the Family Court, in terms of the direction contained in Annexure-A1 order. But the same can be done only on terms, especially in the light of the fact that the impugned order is being set aside in the admission stage of this revision petition, only for the reason that if notices ordered on admitting this revision petition, the claimants before the court below has to be dragged into this court even in that case according to me, without a remand, the matter cannot be disposed of on merit. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of on the following terms. 1. The order dated 19.04.2010 in M.C.No533/2006 of the Family Court, Malappuram is set aside on condition (i) The petitioner pay a sum of `.2,500/- R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011 6 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the first claimant and `.1,500/-(Rupees One thousand five hundred only) to the 2nd claimant who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, as cost within one month from today, the payment of this amounts shall be made either directly to the claimants or through their counsel, if any in the Family Court and after making the payment on either of the mode indicated above, the petitioner shall file a memo before the Family Court to that effect. (ii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of `.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) in the Family Court, Malappuram within one month from today and another `.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) within one R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011 7 month from the date of remittance of `.50,000/- as directed above. (iii) The petitioner shall continues to pay the future maintenance at the rate of `.1,200/- to the first claimant/mother and `.1,300/- to the 2nd claimant/minor daughter. The payment of which shall commence by the 2nd week of February 2011. (iv) The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Family Court, Malppuram on 24.02.2011, on which date the Family Court, Malappuram is directed to restore M.C.No.533/2006, on satisfaction that, the petitioner has complied with the foregone directions. 2. After the appearance of the petitioner in R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011 8 compliance of the above direction, the Family Court, Malappuram is directed to issue notice to the claimants therein and dispose of M.C.No.533/2006 afreshly in terms of the direction contained in Annexure - A1 order of this court. It is made clear that, the Family Court, Malappuram can take appropriate decision regarding the amount of arrears to be deposited by the petitioner, in terms of the outcome of the proceedings pending before it, i.e, M.C No.533/2006. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (V.K.MOHANAN), Judge SS/- //True Copy// P.A to Judge