IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 113 of 2010() ---------------------- MC.245/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER:- ---------------- P.VASUDEVAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.PARENGATTIL PARUKUTTY AMMA, PUTHURUTHY, WADAKKANCHERY. BY ADV. MR. K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS:- ------------------- 1. NANDINI, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.BHARATHY AMMA, KANJAGAHATT HOUSE, KURUNELLIPARAMBU, CHOONDAL. 2. VINAYAKUMAR, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER THE I RESPONDENT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. MS. K.V.BHADRA KUMARI MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- R.P. (F.C.) No. 113 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner who was the respondent in M.C. No. 245 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur, challenges the order dated 15.01.2008 passed by the Family Court awarding maintenance to the revision petitioner's wife aged 38 years and minor son aged 9 years at the rate of Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- per month respectively from the date of petition i.e., 24.01.2006. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. Being a final order under Section 125 Cr.P.C and the initial burden being on the applicants, the learned Family Judge ought to have decided the case on evidence. No evidence appears to have been adduced on either side. When the husband entered appearance and expressed his willingness to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- each to the applicants, the court below was straightaway holding that the said amount was inadequate and the aforesaid final order was accordingly passed on the basis of presumption. R.P.(F.C) No. 113/2010 : 2 : 4. The revision petitioner has a contention that he is a mechanic and he is not getting sufficient customers or income. That is a matter for evidence. Since the impugned order was passed without any evidence, the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Family Court for disposal of M.C. No. 245 of 2006 afresh after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 07.04.2010 without any further notice. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) before the Family Court within one month from today and shall continue to deposit at the rate of Rs.650/- (Rupees six hundred and fifty only) per month by way of interim maintenance. The respondent/wife shall be entitled to withdraw the amounts as and when deposited. The petitioner will be entitled to participate in the revised trial only if he complies with the above conditions. Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv R.P.(F.C) No. 113/2010 : 3 :