IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 39 of 2009() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 344 & 375/07 IN CMP.252/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------- V.UDAYAN, UDAYA VILASAM VEETTIL, AREEKKARA, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. MR.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER/PETITIONER ---------------------------- P.K.VIJAYAN, UDAYA VILASAM VEETTIL, AREEKKARA, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. R1 BY ADVS.MR.P.VINODKUMAR. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO.1009/2009 IN RPFC. NO.39/2009 DISMISSED 09/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 39 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Alappuzha in Crl.M.P.344/07 and Crl.M.P.375/07 in CMP 252/05. After moving an application for maintenance against the son way back, originally Rs.300/- was allowed subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.400/- in 1999 and a CMP is filed to enhance it to Rs.1,500/- and the Court granted an order of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not heard before fixing the amount and therefore he had moved an application for condoning the delay and setting aside of the order. The court below found that valid reasons are not there and therefore rejected those applications. One thing is evident from the materials available that the revision petitioner has not been heard in the matter. It is also equally true that the matter was pending before the Magistrate court and on the formation of the Family Court it was transferred to the Family R.P.(F.C.) NO. 39 OF 2009 -:2:- Court. It is also found that some agent has appeared on behalf of the counter petitioner. But whatever it may be there had been some dislocation and I think in fairness an opportunity can be given so that the matter can be finally decided after hearing both the sides. Therefore I set aside the order passed in the two Crl.M.Ps. allow them and restore the petition CMP 252/05 and direct the court below to permit both concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 3. As an interim arrangement till a final decision is taken in the matter I direct the present revision petitioner to pay at the rate of Rs.700/- per month to the petitioner in CMP 252/05. I make it clear that it is only an interim arrangement and it is not on the merits of the case. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 5.3.2010. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-