IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 392 of 2009() ------------------------------- MC.194/2008 of THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S)/ RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- P.R.BABU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. PAZHNIYAPPAN, CHINNACHUNDI POST, BAR ROAD, GOODALLUR VIA, NILGIRI DIST., TAMILNADU. BY ADV. MR.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- CHAKKALASSERIL SAJNI, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. KESAVAN, CHAKKALASSERIL HOUSE, PERUVANMBADAM, IDIVANNA.P.O. NILAMBUR. R1 BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.APPLN. 10476/2009 IN RP(FC). NO.392/2009 CLOSED 20/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.392 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.194/2008. The wife moved an application for maintenance and the court had ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/= from the date of filing of the petition. It is to be stated that the revision petitioner is a native of Goodalloor in Tamil Nadu and he has married the petitioner in the MC on 11.4.2003. The matrimonial life did not last long and it is contended that he has abandoned her and therefore the case. The husband would contend that the attitude was recalcitrant on the part of the wife. There was an agreement between them and by virtue of that agreement, she has relinquished her right to get maintenance. Though a mention is made about the date of the said agreement in the counter petition, it has not been produced. The revision petitioner also did not mount the box and give any evidence. So, the court below held it in favour of the wife. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays for an opportunity to prove the agreement : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.392 OF 2009 as well as his case. I feel an opportunity can be given provided he also satisfies certain conditions imposed by this Court. The petition is filed in March 2008 and almost 22 months are over. This Court feels that an opportunity can be given to the revision petitioner, if he pays an amount of Rs.15,000/= on or before 25.2.2010 and continues to pay at the rate of Rs.750/= per month till a final decision is taken in the matter. If the amount is not paid on or before 25.2.2010 as directed by this Court, the right to get an opportunity is lost and the order of the court below shall stand confirmed. The parties are directed to appear before the court on 25.2.2010. Let there be an expeditious disposal of the matter within three months from the date of first appearance of the parties. The amount if any already paid, shall be given credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.392 OF 2009