IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 373 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/06/2009 IN CMP.282 & 283/2009 IN MC.667/2008 of .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------- SASI,AGED 39 YEARS,S/O.AYYAPPAN, KANNATTUKADU HOUSE,PUTHUKKODE,MANAPPADAM.P.O, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. SHYMA,AGED 30 YEARS,D/O.PADMANABHAN, 'AISWARYA", THEKKUMURI AMSOM DESOM,NEAR BOYS HIGH SCHOOL,TIRUR. 2. ASHI,AGED 6 YEARS,(MINOR). 3. SREEPATH,AGED 3 YEARS(MINOR),(MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER,THE IST RESPONDENT HEREIN). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN J. ----------------------------- R.P (FC) No.373 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.667 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram, a petition filed by respondents, who are the wife and children of the revision petitioner seeking an order for maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner remained exparte. While allowing the petition, by order dated 27.12.2008, the lower court directed the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.500/- respectively to the first and third respondent. The revision petitioner preferred Crl.M.P.No.282 of 2009 seeking an order to set aside the exparte order. In filing that petition there was a delay of 51 days. Seeking an order to condone the delay in filing that petition Crl.M.P.No.283 of 2009 was filed. By order dated 20.6.2009 both petitions were allowed on condition that the revision petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears of maintenance on or before 7.7.2009. But the revision petitioner failed to deposit the same within the time limit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. R.P (FC) No.373 of 2009 2 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the order impugned, I find that the order impugned is not in any way erroneous. However, it would be just and appropriate to give a second opportunity to the revision petitioner, to agitate his contentions, on conditions. In the result, the revision petition is allowed on condition that the revision petitioner shall deposit the amount directed as per the order in Crl.M.P.No.282 of 2009 and 283 of 2009 within two months, failing which this revision petition would stand dismissed. In the event, on merits, it is found that the respondents are entitled to only a lesser sum as maintenance, the revision petitioner would be entitled to adjust the excess amount, if any paid, towards the future liability. P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE ab