IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 87 of 2008() --------------------- MC.423/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- M.SHAMEER, S/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY, AGED 35 YEARS,RESIDING AT MYLANCHIKKAL HOUSE, VANKULATHUVAYAL, AZEEKKODDU REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER MYLANCHIKKAL ASMA, W/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY AGED 60 YEARS. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.SUDHEESH THAROL RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------- SHAMRIN, D/O,. SHAMEER, AGED 7 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SHAHANAZ K. ROULAS ANDATHODE. P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.87 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order dismissing an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C filed in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner had suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensum to his daughter. That petition was filed in the year 2000 when the child was aged two years and the order was passed on 15/10/2001. After the said order was passed in 2001, the petitioner appears to have filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C to alter the said direction for payment of maintenance. 2. The said application was not filed by the petitioner; but was filed by the petitioner's mother. Even though in the cause title in M.C.No.423/06 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is shown to be represented by his mother and power of attorney holder, the body of the petition clearly shows that it is a petition filed by the petitioner's mother and not the petitioner. It was in these circumstances that the learned Judge of the Family Court passed the impugned order which reads as follows: R.P.F.C.No.8235/08 2 “The petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition and as such dismissed”. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner laments that the learned Judge of the Family Court was being extremely technical in taking the view that the petitioner has no locus standi. According to the petitioner, the petitioner in M.C.No.423/06 is none other than the petitioner herein/the father of the child who had suffered an order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the inelegant manner in which the body of the petition was drafted where the mother of the petitioner was described to be the petitioner in M.C.No.423/06, the learned Judge of the Family Court must have realistically reckoned the petition as one filed by the petitioner herein who had suffered the order for payment of maintenance in M.C.No.30/2000. In taking the view that the petitioner, that is the mother and power of attorney holder of the petitioner as the petitioner and in consequently holding that such petitioner has no locus standi, the learned Judge acted technically and not in aid of justice, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. R.P.F.C.No.8235/08 3 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I note that though in the cause title, the name of the petitioner is shown to be M.Shameer, the petitioner herein, the body of the petition clearly shows that the petition is filed by the mother of M.Shameer and not by M.Shameer, the petitioner herein. I have looked into the nature of the order. The petition was filed on 31/10/2006. The order impugned was passed on 19/12/2006. Instead of filing a proper application by the petitioner himself making it clear that it was the petitioner himself who was seeking to get the order of maintenance modified, the petitioner had unnecessarily chosen to wait and has now chosen to file this petition with an application to condone the delay in filing the same. 5. On merits also, I am not persuaded to agree that the interests of justice demand the entertainment of this application overlooking the technicality. It is for the petitioner now, if he so desires, to file an application to get the order of maintenance modified. I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order does warrant interference. Even technicality at times does appear to further the interests of justice and the impugned R.P.F.C.No.8235/08 4 order, I am satisfied, is an eminently fit case where the rejection of the application on the ground of technicality does not deserve to be interfered with by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 6. This petition is accordingly dismissed. I may, however, hasten to observe that the petitioner's right to file a fresh proper application under Section 127 Cr.P.C will not be fettered by the impugned order or by this order dismissing the revision petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.8235/08 5 R.P.F.C.No.8235/08 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008