IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 265 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.30/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER (RESPONDENT): -------------------------------------------------- KRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR, AGED 77 YEARS, PANNIPPARA HOUSE, PANATHOOR, KALLAPPALLI P.O., RAJAPURAM, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT (PETITIONER): ------------------------- SEEMANTHINI, D/O.LATE MUTHU NAIR, PANNIPPARA HOUSE, PANATHOOR, KALLAPPALLI P.O., RAJAPURAM, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No. 265 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of July 2009 ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The challenge in this revision is to the order dated 11-03- 08 in M.C.No.30 of 2008 of Family Court of Kasargode. According to the petitioner, as per an ex-parte order he was directed to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month. Petitioner contended that no notice was served on him from the court below. 2. Sec.126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for setting aside an ex-parte order on showing good cause. Proper course open to the petitioner is to approach the court below with proper application as stated above showing good cause. Question whether petitioner had due service of notice or was prevented by good cause from appearing in court are matters primarily to be decided by the trial court. In the above view of the matter, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether petitioner had notice about the proceeding. I make it clear that the disposal of this revision will not affect the right if any of petitioner to move appropriate application in the trial court. With the above observation this revision is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/