IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 RPFC.No. 188 of 2010() ---------------------- MC.297/2009 of 2009 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- C.P.VINOD, S/O.HARIDAS, KUZHIYANKUTHU HOUSE, MAILAMPARA, CHULLIYODE.P.O, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. VIDYA, D/O.K.K.SURENDRAN, KARIPPARA HOUSE, VEETIKUNNU, POOKOTTUMPADAM, NILAMBUR TALUK. 2. RITHU NANDU (MINOR), REP.BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER, FIRST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- RPFC No. 188 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 26th Day of May, 2010 ORDER This R.P(F.C) is preferred challenging the condition, contained in Annexure B order, by which the Family Court, Malappuram allowed the request of the revision petitioner to condone the delay of 134 days that occurred in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 7.7.2007 in M.C.No.297/2009 but to deposit 70% of the total arrears of maintainance. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in abroad and he was not aware of the proceedings pending before the Family Court and he approached the Family Court on his return from Saudi Arabia and filed a petition for setting aside the ex parte order. 3. From Annexure A order it appears that the petition for maintainance filed under section 125 Cr.P.C is dated 27.3.2009 and the order was passed on 7.7.2009 RPFC188 OF 2010 -:2:- and so far, no amount is paid by the revision petitioner though Execution Petition is pending before the Family Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is ready to take back the claimants and there is likelihood of settling the dispute between the revision petitioner and the claimants for which an opportunity may be given to the parties. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case and on the basis of the submission made at the bar, I am inclined to grant the relief as sought for but subject to terms. It is relevant to note that immediately after the marriage, the revision petitioner left for Saudi Arabia and now he is deported to India. It is also a fact that though an ex parte order was passed on 7.7.2007, so far no amount is given to the claimants by the revision petitioner. Admittedly, Annexure A order was passed ex parte without hearing the revision petitioner. If there is any scope for the revision petitioner as well as the Ist respondent and their daughter for settling the matter, it RPFC188 OF 2010 -:3:- is for them to sit together and to a have a settlement, either directly or at the intervention of mediators, if any, for which also the parties shall be given an opportunity. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the matter, I am of the view that even without issuing notice to the claimants and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the matter can be disposed of with certain modification with respect to the impugned order. In the result, this RPFC is disposed of directing the revision petitioner to deposit 50% of the total arrears of maintainance amount ordered by the Family Court as per Annexure A order, within one month from today and on depositing such amount, respondents are free to withdraw the same and the Family Court is directed to restore the petition, i.e. CMP No.1870/2009 in M.C.297/2009 and to dispose of the same on merit. As I am not directing the petitioner to pay the monthly maintainance to the respondents, it is left open to the Family court to consider RPFC188 OF 2010 -:4:- the question of directing the petitioner to pay interim maintainance to the respondents. The parties are directed to explore the possibilities to have a settlement of the dispute. The R.P.F.C is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- RPFC188 OF 2010 -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..