IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 11248 of 2006 (L) -------------------------- ( MC.172/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ B.ABDULL AZEEZ, S/O.YOUSUF, AGED 45 YEARS, BUSH RAZ MAVILA P.O., MAVILAA ROAD, PARAVANADKAM, KASARGOD. BY ADVS. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. SAJIDA, D/O..SAINUDEEN, AGED 32 YEARS, PANARKULAM, ALAMPADY P.O., CHENGALA, KASARAGOD. 2. SHABIN, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, MINOR, AGED 5 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN DO. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.K.P.PRADEEP (PAYYANNUR) R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.C.NO.11248 OF 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated 5th October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner, the husband of first respondent filed Ext.P2 petition (Crl.M.P.1465/2006), to set aside the ex- parte order dated 30/4/2005 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per month to second respondent, minor son of the first respondent. By Ext.P3 order dated 10/3/2006, Family Court dismissed the petition as there was no representation and petitioner was absent. Consequently, by Ext.P4 order, Family Court allowed the application filed by the first respondent to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,000/- in deposit. This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to Wpc 11248/06 2 quash Exts.P3 and P4 orders. When writ petition was admitted on 19/4/2006, order issuing non bailable warrant was stayed on condition of deposit of Rs.15,000/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. When the ex-parte order was passed directing petitioner to pay maintenance, he filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order. As there was no representation for the petitioner and his counsel was also absent, Family Court was justified in dismissing Ext.P2 petition by Ext.P3 order. If there is sufficient reason for the absence of the petitioner on 10/3/2006, when the petition was dismissed, it is upto the petitioner to approach the concerned Family Court and seek an order to restore Crl.M.P.1465/2006. I find Wpc 11248/06 3 no reason to quash Exts.P3 or P4 orders. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.