IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 RPFC.No. 176 of 2011() ---------------------- M.C.NO.211/2002 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------- SIVADASAN,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMAN ACHARI, PANAVILA VEEDU, VILAMANNOOR CHERY, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE. BY SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SREELATHA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.BHASKARAN, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, ADICHANELLOOR CHERRY, ADICHANELLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P(F.C) No.176 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September 2011 ORDER Challenge in the revision is by the respondent in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, who has been ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of `.500/- per month to the petitioner in such proceedings. Status of the petitioner therein as the wife of the revision petitioner has been challenged by him contending that though a marriage had taken place, it has not consummated. The claim for maintenance as under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was considered along with two other petitions, one moved by the revision petitioner for a declaration that his marriage with the petitioner was null and void and the other by the opposite party, for return of gold ornaments and also the amount purported to have been paid as 'sthreedhanam'. Under a common order, the learned Judge, Family Court, Kollam has disposed of all the three proceedings, by which the petition moved by the present revision petitioner seeking for declaration of the marriage as null and void had been turned down while the other two proceedings at the instance of the opposite party were allowed in part. Challenge in the present revision as already indicated is against the awarding of maintenance at the rate of `.500/- R.P(F.C) No.176/2011 - 2 - per month, partly allowing the proceeding undertaken by the opposite party under Section 125 of the Code. 2. Though notice served, the respondent has not entered appearance. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, on the application moved by the opposite party, there was a direction to pay a sum of `.300/- per month and it was accordingly paid without default, is the submission of the counsel. The amount so paid has not been taken into account while passing the final order fixing maintenance at the rate of `.500/- per month from the date of petition, is the further submission of the counsel. Though the entitlement of the party to claim maintenance from the revision petitioner is still disputed, having regard to the scope of interference in revision to challenge the order awarding maintenance, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that without prejudice to his right to canvass and agitate such challenges, which are still pursued in the appeals as against the adverse orders passed against him in the connected proceedings, the revision may be disposed of specifically directing that whatever amount paid as interim maintenance shall also be taken into account in case any claim for arrears of maintenance on the basis of the impugned order is raised by the opposite party. R.P(F.C) No.176/2011 - 3 - Taking note of the submissions made by the counsel as aforesaid and also perusing the order impugned, wherein apparently no infirmity is presented to warrant interference in awarding of the maintenance, it is directed that if any amount had been paid as interim maintenance by the revision petitioner pursuant to orders passed in the proceedings, such amount shall also be reckoned as the amount awarded in the final order and given credit to in the claim for maintenance on the basis of the impugned order. It is further clarified that the orders passed in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code would not stand in the way of the petitioner in agitating the challenges raised by him, if so entitled to under law, in the connected proceedings which too had been disposed of under the common order. Subject to the above directions/observations, revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge