IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 208 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.166/2007 of FAMILYCOURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------- C.CHANDRAN, S/O.LATE M.MADHAVAN NAIR, CHENEDATH HOUSE, VANIYAMKULAM AMSOM, PANAYUR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M.SREEDHARAN NAIR, S/O.LATE MANAYANKATH KARTHIAYANI AMMA,MANAYANKATH HOUSE,VANIYAMKULAM AMSOM,PANAYUR DESOM,OTTAPALAM. BY ADVS. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SMT.N.N.PRASEEDA. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. K.T.OMANA, D/O.KESAVAN NAIR, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, THIRUVAKONAM, PANAMANNA P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. ARUN VISHNU (MINOR), S/O.K.T.OMANA, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT K.T.OMANA. R1 BY ADVS. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.5660/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.208/2009 DISMISSED 16/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.208 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.166/2007. The wife and son moved an application for maintenance and the family court directed the revision petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/= to the wife and Rs.2,500/= to the child. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. It is submitted that the husband moved an application for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that divorce has to be granted as the wife is suffering from mental illness. I am informed that the said matter has ended in a decree for divorce and the matrimonial appeal is pending before this Court for consideration. When the matter went up before a Division Bench, the Division Bench had segregated the revision and sent it to the Single Bench for disposal. It is an independent matter that has to be considered. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.208 OF 2009 the husband was never given an opportunity to put forward his contentions. It is contended that the wife being mentally ill is incapable of defending her case and even if her argument is accepted that he is mentally safe, the question of granting maintenance may arise for consideration. 3. I am not going into the merits of the case, but I feel that an opportunity has to be given to the revision petitioner to put forward his contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. 4. Therefore the revision is allowed and the order of maintenance so far as it relates to the wife is concerned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the family court for consideration on that point after permitting the parties concerned to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. If personal presence of the revision petitioner is necessary and if he is working abroad, the family court shall consider that and give a reasonable time for appearance of the parties. Till a final decision is taken, the interim maintenance ordered by this : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.208 OF 2009 Court at the rate of Rs.2,000/= be continued to be paid and there will not be any bar for getting maintenance of the child, that is ordered by the family court. Parties are directed to appear before the family court on 23.4.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.208 OF 2009