IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16402 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.729/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- MOIDU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, PULIKKUNNATH HOUSE, THEKKUM MURI, P.O. NANNAM MUKKU. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAMALA, D/O. SAITHALI, KARUPPATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O. CHERAVALLUR, NANNAM MUKKU VIA, PONNANI TALUK. 2. RASIYA, D/O. RAMLA, KARUPPATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O. CHERAVALLUR, NANNAM MUKKU VIA, PONNANI TALUK. 3. JAFAR, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O. RAMLA (MINOR) KARUPPATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O. CHERAVALLUR, NANNAM MUKKU VIA, PONNANI TALUK (MINOR RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER THE FIRST RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.16402 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The petitioner faces two proceedings before the Family Court, both initiated by his wife and child. Claim was made under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Claim was also made for past maintenance and return of ornaments, cash, etc. In both cases, the petitioner entered appearance. The matter could not be settled. Thereafter, the petitioner made himself scarce and did not appear before the court. The learned Judge of the Family Court in these circumstances was left with no other alternative, but to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. The learned Judge proceeded to pass ex parte orders in both the M.C.(125 proceedings) and in the O.P. Orders were passed in favour of the claimants - wife and minor child. Wife was granted maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem and the child was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per mensem. The claim for past W.P.(C)No.16402/09 -2 maintenance and the claim for return of ornaments, etc. was also allowed. 2. Long later, the petitioner came to the Family court with an application for condonation of the delay. Those petitions were allowed subject to conditions. It was directed that the ex parte order in the M.C. shall stand set aside on condition that the entire amounts due were paid by 20.2.2009. In the claim for past maintenance, etc. it was directed that 50% of the past maintenance awarded as also 5% of the remaining decretal amount must be paid before 20.2.2009, failing which it was directed that the petition shall stand dismissed. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. He has hence come to this Court to assail the impugned order, copy of which is produced as Exhibit P4. 4. We are not going into the technicality as to whether only a revision is maintainable against the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and an appeal under Section 19 would only be maintainable against an order passed in the O.P. As a composite order was passed, we are satisfied that the challenge W.P.(C)No.16402/09 -3 can be considered in this Writ Petition. 5. We are not at all persuaded to agree that the impugned order suffers from any such vice that would justify or warrant interference invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any patent error or injustice resulting from the impugned order. The same to our mind eminently caters to the ends of justice. We are not in these circumstances satisfied that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the direction was to pay the amount by 20.2.2009. Some further time may be granted to the petitioner to make deposit of the amount, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We do not find much merit in the request raised. We note the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he wanted to challenge the order and the copy of the order was obtained much later only. We are satisfied in these circumstances that the petitioner can be granted time to show his W.P.(C)No.16402/09 -4 bona fides. Notwithstanding the fact that we have not ordered notice to the respondent, we are satisfied that the petitioner can be given one month's time more to deposit the amount and comply with the order. 8. This Writ Petition is in these circumstances allowed in part. The petitioner is granted time till 15.7.2009 to make payment of the entire amounts as directed in the impugned order before the court below. If such deposit is made, the court below shall reckon the same as sufficient compliance with Exhibit P4 order. Needless to say, the amounts deposited can be released to the respondents and appropriate directions can be issued later after the ex parte order is set aside and the matter is disposed of afresh. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn