IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 RPFC.No. 197 of 2010() --------------------------------- MC.149/2009 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- VISWANATHAN @ VISWAM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, NADUVILPADU, MELEPARAMBIL VEEDU, KUNNATHUKAVU, MEZHATHUR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- ASWIN, AGED 9 YEARS, ATHANIPARAMBILVEEDU, PERINGODU VIA., CHAZHIYATTIRI P.O.,PALAKKAD, REP. BY NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER JANAKI, AGED 42 YEARS, ATHANIPARAMBILVEEDU, PERINGODU VIA., CHAZHIYATTIRI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.) No.197 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010. O R D E R This petition is preferred, challenging the order dated 5.8.2009 of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.149/09 which is a petition filed u/s.125 of Cr.P.C., claiming the maintenance for the petitioner therein, who is allegedly the son of the revision petitioner herein. By the above order, the Family Court has directed the revision petitioner to pay the maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- from the date of the filing of the petition, that from 30.4.2009. 2. When the above belated petition came up for admission, this court ordered notice in Crl.M.A.No.12055/09, which is a petition to condone the delay of 32 days that occurred in filing the above revision petition. Thereafter the delay was condoned on 28.5.2010. Subsequently, the revision petition was admitted on 7.6.2010 and an interim order was passed directing the revision petitioner to deposit the entire arrears, within one month from R.P.(F.C.) No.197 of 2010 2 7.6.2010 and also directed the revision petitioner to pay the future monthly maintenance @ Rs.2,000/-. In the above interim order it is observed that, the question of withdrawal of the above amount by the respondents can be considered by the Family Court. 3. The counsel for the respondent submitted that, the respondents may be permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited by the revision petitioner. Whereas the counsel for the revision petitioner stoutly opposed the above submission stating that, the paternity of the respondent herein, yet to be decided by the Family Court. However, considering the subsequent development, after filing of the revision petition, I am of the view that without going into the merits or demerits of the case of the revision petitioner and the claim of the respondent herein, I am of the view that the parties can be relegated to approach the Family Court, Palakkad, where the revision petitioner had already filed Crl.M.P.No.987/10 u/s.126(2) of Cr.P.C, for setting aside the exparte order. 4. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent, the revision petitioner can not invoke the jurisdiction of R.P.(F.C.) No.197 of 2010 3 the Family Court as well as the jurisdiction of this court simultaneously. The code of Criminal Procedure itself has provided specific provision for setting aside the exparte order, if the court concerned is satisfied with the grounds raised therein. In the present case the petitioner has already resorted such alternative statutory remedy. Therefore it is only just and proper to relegate the revision petitioner to approach the Family Court, Palakkad, for disposal of Crl.M.P.No.987/10, which stand posted on 23.9.2010. As observed by this court, in the order dated 7.6.2010 in Crl.M.A.No.12055/09 in view of the disposal of the revision petition, the Family Court can take appropriate decision regarding the amount already deposited by the revision petitioner in terms of the order mentioned above. If an application is moved by the respondent herein, for the withdrawal of the amount, it is for the Family court to take appropriate decision on such petition. With the above direction and observation, this revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/