IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 300 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/05/2009 IN CMP 145/2009 IN MC.364/2007 OF FAMILY COURT MALAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMALUDHEEN, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN, PULIKKAL, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. RASEENA, D/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI, VATTUPARA, JUBILEE ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. LULU LISAN-MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT-MOTHER-GUARDIAN. 3. LULU LIYANA-MINOR-REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT-MOTHER-GUARDIAN. 4. LAHAN LAZIN, MINOR-REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT-MOTHER-GUARDIAN. ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1/ 12 /2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ====================== R.P.(F.C). No.300 of 2009 ====================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT The respondents herein, who are the wife and children of the revision petitioner, obtained an exparte order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.364/07. Seeking an order to set aside the exparte order he preferred C.M.P. No. 609/08. That was dismissed for default. To restore that petition, C.M.P.No. 1441/08 was filed. That petition was also dismissed for default. The revision petitioner, thereupon filed C.M.P.No.145/09 seeking an order to restore C.M.P.No. 1441/08. In that proceedings also, the revision petition remained absent. Consequently, by order dated 19.5.09, that petition was also dismissed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of that order, this revision petition was filed. Having heard either side, I find little merit in the revision petition. I find serious laches and R.P(F.C). No.300 of 2009 2 negligence on the side of revision petitioner. The revision had adopted an indifferent attitude, which can not be encouraged any way. However, I find that, being a matrimonial dispute, it would be appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the revision petitioner to seek an order on merits on conditions. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned would stand set aside and C.M.P. 145/09 would stand restored to file on condition that revision petitioner shall deposit Rs.25,000/- towards maintenance arrears, failing which this revision petition shall stand dismissed. On deposit, the trial court shall dispose that petition on merits. The respondents are at liberty to withdraw the same. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mns R.P(F.C). No.300 of 2009 3