IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 RPFC.No. 169 of 2011() ---------------------------------- MC.NO. 277/2009 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SALINI.K.C,AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.K.G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,KOCHUKALATHARA, PANANGAD.P.O,KULANADA,PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 503. 2. BHADRA.S,AGED 2 ½ YEARS,(MINOR), D/O.SALINI.K.C, KOCHUKALATHARA,PANANGAD.P.O, KULANADA,PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT,PIN:689 503,(REP:BY THE IST PETITIONER AS THE GUARDIAN AND THE NEXT FRIEND). BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): CR.PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- MR.SAJAN GANGADHARAN,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.P.GANGADHARAN,ASAN NIVAS,ASAN JN, EDAKKULANGARA.P.O,KARUNAGAPPALLY,PIN-690 562. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts R.P.(FC)NO.169/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.277/2009 DATED 28/4/2010. ANNEX 2 COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.P.(HMA) 755/09 & OP 756/09 DATED 5/8/2010. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P(F.C) No.169 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September 2011 ORDER The order under challenge is passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Thiruvalla in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). Claim for maintenance was made by the petitioners, admittedly, the wife and child of the respondent, alleging their inability to maintain and also neglect on the part of the respondent to provide them maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court has passed the impugned order allowing maintenance at the rate of `.2,000/- to the child, second petitioner alone stating that during the proceedings, the wife, first petitioner, agreed to forgo her claim, and, endorsement thereof was made. No such endorsement was made nor has she given up her claim, is the challenge raised in the revision against the order as aforesaid. Though the learned counsel for the respondent attempted to sustain Annexure A1 order impugned in the revision contending that there was in fact giving up of the claim by the wife, nothing has been produced to indicate that there was an endorsement by the wife as stated in the order. Sufficient opportunity was also extended to the respondent to produce copy of the petition in which endorsement, if any, had been recorded by the court below. The R.P(F.C) No.169 OF 2011 2 learned counsel, after referring to a fax copy collected of the certified copy issued to his party, has submitted that the endorsement made in the petition was only to the effect that respondent agreed to pay `.2,000/- to the child. That, at any rate, would not indicate that the wife had given up her claim. In this circumstance, I find, the impugned order disallowing the claim for maintenance canvassed by the wife, on the premise that she had given up her claim and there was an endorsement to that effect, cannot at all be sustained. The learned Judge, Family Court shall take back the file and consider the claim of the wife on its merits, after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to establish their respective case. So far as the claim of maintenance awarded to the second petitioner child, no further inquiry is contemplated, and that order shall be treated as final and conclusive. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 17/10/2011. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge