IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 378 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.24/2005 of Family Court, Nedumangad. .................... APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- AJI, S/O. APPU, KUDAPPANAVILA VEEDU, VADAKODE DESOM, PERUMPAZHUTHUR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.S.LETHIKA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. USHA, D/O. MARY, P.P.I.NO.261, ALAMPOTTA, AINTHALAKONAM, PERUMPAZHUTHUR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 2. ANTO (MINOR), AGED 2 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT: ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R1,2 SRI.G.BIJU FOR R1,2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ========================== R.P.(F.C) No. 378 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 17th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Nedumangad in M.C.24/2005. The wife and child moved an application for maintenance against the husband and the court below granted a sum of Rs.400/- as maintenance. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Perused. 3. A perusal of the order would reveal that the court below has passed an exparte order of maintenance. It appears that there was a direction to pay interim maintenance, which was not complied with and thereafter the court proceeded to decide the matter exparte. The contention of the revision petitioner appears to be that he is prepared to pay maintenance to the child, but there are no grounds for a separate living and therefore, the wife would not be entitled to separate maintenance. It is also his grievance that a petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights had also been dismissed for default, which is also R.P.(F.C) No. 378 of 2007 2 pending consideration before this court. Since it is not the quantum alone,i.e., under challenge, but also the right to receive maintenance, I feel the best course is to grant an opportunity to the parties to put forth their contentions on merits. But as a condition, let the revision petitioner to pay at the rate of Rs.400/-per month each as an interim order till a final decision is taken in the matter. 4. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court for fresh consideration with a direction to permit both parties to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. As an interim direction, the revision petitioner shall continue to pay at the rate of Rs.400/-each per month to the wife and child till a final decision is taken in the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the court on 23.4.2010. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns R.P.(F.C) No. 378 of 2007 3