IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 156 of 2009() ---------------------- ORDER DATED 30.8.2008 OF MC.796/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- M.IBRAHIM, S/O.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.15/300 D2, BALKULA VILLAGE, KUNDA, BENGAL MATTOM, NILGIRI, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SAMEENA @ SHAMEENA, D/O.MOHAMMED BARKATH, KARAKA PARAMBIL, VAVULIYAPURAM, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 2. SAJINA, D/O.SAMEENA @ SHAMEENA, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER, IST RESPONDENT ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN FOR R1 & 2 SRI.BABY MATHEW FOR R1 & 2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON 25/11/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN J. ----------------------------- R.P(FC) No. 156 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.796 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The respondents herein who are the wife and daughter of the revision petitioner, preferred the above petition seeking an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner filed his counter and the case was posted for enquiry on 16.12.2008 at its Alathoor Camp. The revision petitioner sought time. But the learned Judge was not inclined to grant the request. The revision petitioner was set exparte and after taking evidence the petition was allowed on the same day. Thereby the revision petitioner was ordered to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the first respondent and at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the second respondent. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. 2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner he has raised serious contentions including denial of paternity of the second respondent. Since the counsel for the revision petitioner was engaged in Palakkad, he could not attend the camp sitting at Alathoor and that though the junior sought for time to pass it over till afternoon, it R.P(FC) No. 156 of 2009 2 was declined and as a result, justice was denied to him. I find little merit in the contention. The camp sitting was arranged at outstation only to suit the convenience of the parties. Then, it is not at all justified for the counsel to seek for an adjournment. I find that the lower court had correctly declined the request for adjournment and right in proceeding exparte. However, I find that it would be appropriate to grant an opportunity to the revision petitioner to agitate his contentions on conditions. In the result this revision petition is allowed on condition that the revision petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- on or before 1.1.2010 towards the maintenance failing which the revision petition would stand dismissed. On deposit, the respondents are at liberty to withdraw the same. The trial court shall dispose the petition on merits as per law. In the event the revision petitioner succeeds before the trial court and the petition is dismissed, the respondents are entitled to adjust the deposited amount towards their cost. In the event revision petitioner fails, the said amount shall be credited to the maintenance due. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE //True Copy// ab PA to Judge