IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 RPFC.No. 60 of 2006 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRLM.P.NO.611/05 IN M.C. NO. 34/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- SAJEEV, KAKKOTTU CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PAYACKODU DESOM, POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. SALEENA, KAKKOTTUMELETHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PAYACKODU DESOM, POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAYADATH, AGED 1 AND HALF YEARS, MINOR, DO. DO. REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT. BY ADV. SMT.SEEMA. R (LEGAL AID COUNSEL). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.)No.60 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.34 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakara. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the above petition under Section 125 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure seeking an order awarding maintenance to the second respondent. The revision petitioner remained exparte. After exparte enquiry, the trial court awarded maintenance to the second respondent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. 2. The revision petitioner filed Criminal M.P.611 of 2005 seeking an order to set aside the exparte order. The trial court allowed the petition on condition the revision petitioner remitting Rs.19,000/- being half of the maintenance awarded by the trial court to the second respondent. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard either side, I find that the lower court on sufficient reasons arrived a conclusion regarding the R.P.(F.C.)No.60 of 2006 2 paternity of the revision petitioner, which was disputed by him. Though the trial court ordered for D.N.A. test the revision petitioner was not amenable. It is in the above circumstances, the paternity was found against the revision petitioner and maintenance was granted. However, the lower court was gracious in allowing the petitioner to set aside the exparte order. The only condition that was imposed is depositing the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.250/- per month. I find that the condition imposed by the trial court is not very onerous. It is not beyond the means of the revision petitioner. It is neither excessive. I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. In the result, the revision petition is devoid of merit and accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted two weeks to deposit the amount. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj