IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 87 of 2009() --------------------- MC.226/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER (S): COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ KRISHNAN, ANAKUZHY THEDATARIKATHU VEEDU, NANNIYODU, MEEMMUTTY.P.O, PALODE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.S.SREEDUTT RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------------------- 1. ANNAMMA, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, VEMBIL, PANAYAM, MANNOORKONAM.P.O, ANAD VILLAGE. 2. TINTU, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, VEMBIL, PANAYAM, MANNOORKONAM.P.O, ANAD VILLAGE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 87 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009. O R D E R This revision is filed to set aside the order passed in favour of the 2nd petitioner in M.C.226/07 of the Family Court, Nedumangad. The trial court by its judgment dated 3.12.07 allowed maintenance to the 2nd petitioner therein at the rate of Rs.750/- from the date of petition, i.e. 14.9.2007. The specific challenge in this case is found in paragraph 2 of the counter statement filed before that Court. The revision petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not a minor and the 2nd petitioner is aged 18 years and seven months and her date of birth is 6.2.1989. In support of that contention Annexure A3 is produced before this Court which is a certificate issued by the Taluk Headquarters Hospital to the effect that the first petitioner has given birth to a child on 6.2.1989. I am not trying to consider the legal admissibility or otherwise of this document but there is a specific contention for the husband that the child has crossed the age R.P(F.C.) NO. 87 OF 2009 -:2:- of 18 years on the date of filing of the application and there is a clear bar u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to a child who has become a major. This aspect has not been considered at all by the Family Court and therefore it requires consideration. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court, Nedumangad for fresh consideration of this point in accordance with law after permitting both sides to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Since the petitioners have not entered appearance before this Court though notice is served I direct the present revision petitioner herein to take out notice to them for facilitating the Court to have a considered disposal. The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Family Court on 6.4.2009. Since the order itself is set aside there is no executable order and so the revision petitioner cannot be proceeded against for the amount ordered as maintenance. The R.P.(F.C) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-