IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 195 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.111/2007 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER : CR.PETITIONER ----------------- ROY ISACC, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM MATHAI, MARATTOMOOTTIL VEEDU, VANCHI POIKA, VETTRIPRAM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHEERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND STATE ------------- 1. SINDHU THOMAS, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.THANKACHAN THOMAS, UZHATHIL VEEDU, VALYANTHI MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R1 SRI.SAJJU.S FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.195 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner in this R.P.F.C assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.800/- per mensem to the claimant, his wife. Marriage is admitted. Two fold contentions are seen raised. First is that the wife, whose marriage with the petitioner took place on 20.04.2006, is living in adultery. Secondly and alternatively it is contended that the wife, who had started separate residence w.e.f 17.06.06, is refusing to live with the petitioner without sufficient cause. Before the Family Court statements of the parties were recorded. Though a counter statement is seen filed by the petitioner, the same was not taken into consideration by the learned Judge of the Family Court. It appears that though the statements of both the petitioner and the counter petitioner were recorded, no specific opportunity for cross examining the adversary was given to either of the parties. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays and the learned counsel for the respondent does not seriously oppose the said prayer that the R.P.F.C. No.195 of 2008 2 learned Judge of the Family Court may be directed to dispose of the case afresh ignoring the statements recorded by now of the rival contestants and permitting user of such statements, if necessary, only as a prior statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the counter statement, which has admittedly been filed on the date to which the case was posted for filing such statement, may be ordered to be received and the parties may be permitted to adduce fresh evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned counsel for the respondent also accepts the said submission, but presses the claim for interim maintenance. The learned counsel for the respondent prays that, at any rate, there may be a direction for time bound disposal of the case. 2. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am satisfied that the impugned order can be set aside and the parties can be given a further opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned Judge of the Family Court shall now receive the counter statement filed by the petitioner and afford an opportunity for both the parties to adduce fresh evidence. Statements of PW1 and CPW1, which are R.P.F.C. No.195 of 2008 3 seen recorded already by the court, shall not be made use of for any purpose except as prior statements. 3. In the result: i) This R.P.F.C is allowed; ii) The impugned order is set aside; iii) The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 01.09.08 without waiting for any further notice; iv) The learned Judge of the Family Court shall hold de novo trial and dispose of the claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 3 months from 01.09.08. The counter statement filed by the petitioner shall be received and both parties shall be permitted to adduce fresh evidence in support of their respective contention. v) I do not think it necessary to issue any directions regarding payment of interim maintenance. The claimant can make an appropriate application before the learned Judge of the Family Court, whereupon, such claim for interim maintenance shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-