IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.No. 209 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2009 IN CRMP.443/2008 IN MC.4/2008 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONR IN MC: -------------------- M.G. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, MADATHILETHU HOUSE, VALLICODU P.O., (VIA), KAIPATTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN MC: --------------- 1. M.SYAMALA KUMARI, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, VAYALAVADAKKU MURI , VALLICODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 2. ARYA LEKSHMI, AGED 16 YEARS, (MINOR),KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, VAYALAVADAKKU MURI, VALLICODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, REP. BY IST PETITIONER-MOTHER. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.209 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. The order under challenge is one under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing an exparte order for payment of maintenance to be set aside on condition that petitioner deposited one third of arrears of maintenance payable to the respondents. 3. Petitioner retired from Travancore Devaswom Board on 31.8.2007. Respondents claimed maintenance from him alleging that he has neglected and refused to maintain them. As per order dated 7.7.2008 court below directed petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to respondent Nos.1 and 2, wife and daughter at the rate of Rs.700/- per month and Rs.1,000/- per month respectively. Petitioner wanted that order to be set aside as according to him it was passed exparte. Court below observed that it is inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the case provided petitioner deposited one third of the arrears (ie., for the period from 7.7.2008 till 16.3.2009) on or before 7.4.2009. Petitioner did not deposit that amount and hence the petition (Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2008) to set aside exparte order stood dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that in a connected case respondent No.1 has obtained an order of injunction from the Family Court not to disburse the pensionary RP(FC) No.209/2009 2 benefits to the petitioner by the Travancore Devaswom Board and hence petitioner could not deposit the amount. But I find that sufficient time was granted by the court below to the petitioner to deposit the amount. If that much time was not sufficient, petitioner could have requested the court below to extend the time for deposit. That was not done. The amount which the petitioner was ordered to deposit under the conditional order was just over Rs.4,500/-. It is not as if petitioner was incapable of earning, assuming that he did not get the pensionary benefits from his former employer on account of any order of the court. There is no justifiable reason for not depositing the amount. Maintenance was awarded in favor of wife and daughter, the latter aged 16 years as on 7.7.2008 and what is awarded is just Rs.700/- to the wife (respondent No.1) and Rs.1,000/- to the daughter aged 16 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order under challenge calling for interference. Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed. Crl.M.A.No.5671 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks