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. 84 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/02/2009 IN CMP 90/2009 IN MC.229/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- BILSMON ABRAHAM @ BINS, S/O.THOMAS ABRAHAM, MALIACKAL HOUSE, KONDOOR KARA, ERATTUPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS --------------------------------- 1. ELIZEBATH @ MINI, W/O.BINS, MALIACKAL HOUSE, KONDOOR KARA, ERATTUPETTA. 2. ALEX BINS (MINOR) OF -DO- -DO- 3. ANNA @ ARYA MINI BILS OF -DO- -DO- 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. 84 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision is filed with a prayer to set aside the order of the Family Court, Kottayam in C.M.P. No. 90/2009. It is submitted that the Family Court has ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- together from 2.9.2006. A petition has been filed on 4.2.2009 for the realisation of the amount. So for 28 months the amount will come to Rs. 84,000/-. The petitioner herein had produced counterfoil issued from the bank wherein it is stated that an amount of Rs. 60,000/- had been paid to the account of the wife. I have perused Annexure I which gives number of the account as well as the name of person and date of payment as on 9.7.2008. Unfortunately just because the wife denied it, the court without conducting an enquiry ordered Distress Warrant. This is not a proper procedure to be followed. When there is a contention supported by a document any court of law is expected to conduct an enquiry regarding correctness of the same before ordering Distress Warrant. The Family Court did R.P(F.C)No. 84/2009 -2- not apply its mind at all and passed an order. So I think it is a case which requires interference at the admission stage itself. 2. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the Family Court Judge without notice to the other side and direct Family Court Judge to consider C.M.P. 90/2009 afresh taking into consideration the contention of the husband and permitting the other party also to adduce evidence and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner herein is directed to appear before the Family Court on 2.4.2009. A notice shall be given to wife from the court. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm