IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 RPFC.No. 74 of 2011() --------------------- (M.P. NOS.2114 & 2115 OF 2010 IN MC.217/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR) .................... REVN.PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- SHAJI, S/O. GANGADHARAN, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THANISSERY DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SEEMA K.S., D/O. KATHIRAPPILLIL SASI, VELLANI DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE, VELLANI P.O., PIN-680 701, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P(FC) No. 74 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 23rd Day of March, 2011 ORDER The petitioner in MP No.2114 and 2115 of 2010 in M.C.No.217/2008 of the Family Court, Thrissur, is the revision petitioner. MP No.2114/10 is filed with a prayer to set aside the ex parte order dated 24.5.2010 in M.C. No.217/2008. Since there was delay of 180 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order, the petitioner had preferred MP No.2115/2010 also to condone the delay. The learned Judge of the Family court has considered the above petitions on merit and allowed the same in favour of the petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposits half of the amount due from him as per the ex parte order, as on the date of the order passed by the Family Court and also an amount of Rs.1500/- as cost to the respondent. While issuing order dated 18.2.2011, setting aside the ex parte order, the petitioner was specifically directed to deposit those amounts on or before 11.2.2011 and the said date was subsequently postponed and the period was extended up to 18.2.2011. But the petitioner failed to comply with the above direction and accordingly, by the RP(FC) 74/11 :-2-: impugned order, the above petitions were dismissed. The present RPFC is preferred against the above order of the Family Court, Thissur. 2. I have heard Sri V.C.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the revision partitioner and I have perused the order impugned. 3. The present submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner met with an accident, he could not comply with the order in time and hence he seeks two weeks time to comply with the orders issued by the Family Court on 31.1.2011. 4. From the submission of the learned counsel and from the order impugned in this Crl.R.P., it can be seen that the wife of the petitioner had preferred M.C No.217/2008 under section 125 Cr.P.C on 5.7.2008 claiming maintenance and though the petitioner appeared in the Family court, subsequently disappeared and consequently the family court Judge has passed an ex parte order on 24.5.2010. Though there was a delay in approaching the Family Court to set aside the ex parte order, the delay was condoned and RP(FC) 74/11 :-3-: the petition to set aside the ex parte order was allowed on terms. But the revision petitioner miserably failed to comply with the conditions stipulated by the Family Court in its order dated 31.1.2011. Negligence of the petitioner continued, even though the time was further extended and granted till 18.2.2011. In effect, though the claimant approached the Family Court, as early as on 5.7.2008 claiming maintenance, so far not a single pie has been paid to her because of the laches on the part of the petitioner. However, the Family Court by its order dated 31.1.2011, allowed the prayer of the petitioner to set aside the ex parte order. If that be so, according to me, it is only just and proper to extend the time to deposit the arrears and cost but subject to modification. In the result, this R.P.FC is disposed of setting aside the order dated 18.2.2011 of the Family court, Thrissur in MP No.2114 and 2115 of 2010 in M.C.No.217/2008. The petitioner is granted two weeks time from today to deposit half of the entire arrears as on today on the basis of the ex parte order dated 24.5.2010 and on further condition that the petitioner pays a cost of Rs.3000/- to the respondent/claimant in the M.C within two weeks from today. The RP(FC) 74/11 :-4-: petitioner is directed to file a memo in the Family court showing the payment of Rs.3000/- to the respondent/claimant as directed above within one week, from the date of remittance of the arrears and payment of the cost before the Family Court and on satisfaction of the same, the Family Court is directed to restore the above Miscellaneous Petitions after three weeks from today. Coercive steps if any pending against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks from today. V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE. kvm/-