IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 369 of 2008() ---------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C.No.264/05 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR PETITIONER : RESPONDENT -------------------- SIDHIQUE, 30 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM RAYIMARAKKAR HOUSE, KOTHALAMKULAMPU DESOM, KAYARADI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------- 1. REJEENA, 20 YEARS, W/O.SIDDHIQUE, C/O.HAIDROS,MANAKKADAVATH HOUSE, CHATTAKULAM PALAKKAD PO., THRISSUR 2. MINOR ANSAL, S/O.1ST RESPONDENT REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN REJEENA. ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.369 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has come to this Court aggrieved by an exparte order directing payment of maintenance @ Rs.500/- and 350/- per mensem respectively to the claimants admittedly his wife and child. He filed an application to set aside the exparte order. That application was allowed subject to conditions. He was directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards the arrears due. That amount was not paid. He later came to this Court with this revision petition. There was a delay of 857 days in filing the revision petition. On terms, that delay was condoned and the revision petition has come up for hearing now. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. The sum and substance of the contention is that the petitioner is totally blind and is not able to work and earn his livelihood. He was earlier employed abroad and he was sent back to India, it is submitted. The impugned order shows that the claimants had a contention that the petitioner was running a shop fetching an income of Rs.8,000/- per mensem. R.P.F.C. No.369 of 2008 2 3. The application is opposed. But after hearing all concerned, I am satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the impugned order can be set aside and the petitioner can be granted opportunity to contest the proceedings subject to appropriate terms and conditions. At the Bar, there is virtual agreement that such a course can be adopted. 4. In the result: i) This Revision Petition is allowed; ii) The impugned order shall stand set aside and the learned Judge of the Family Court shall dispose of the case afresh on condition that the petitioner deposits the half the amount due under the impugned order till 31.12.08 on or before 15.01.09; iii) Parties shall appear before the Family Court on 16.01.09. If the amount is deposited as directed, the learned Judge shall proceed to dispose of M.C.No.264 of 2005 as expeditiously thereafter - at any rate, within a period of 3 months from that date; iv) If deposited, the entire amount so deposited including the amount of Rs.2,500/- already deposited, shall forthwith be released to the claimants; R.P.F.C. No.369 of 2008 3 v) If the amount is not deposited as directed, the learned Judge of the Family Court shall make a note of that fact on 16.01.09 and thereupon the impugned order shall continue to remain in force and be enforced. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-