IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 115 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.91/2002 of FAMILY COURT KOTTAYAM .................... REV.PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ SURESH, S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, ARYATU HOUSE, VELLAVOOR KARA, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. MAYAMANI, D/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, MANIPLACKAL HOUSE, VELLAVOOR, MANIMALA P.O. 2. VISHNU (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER MAYAMANI, MANIPLACKAL HOUSE, VELLAVOOR, MANIMALA P.O. 3. UNNI (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER MAYAMANI, MANIPLACKAL HOUSE, VELLAVOOR, MANIMALA P.O. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BENNY VARGHESE ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS FOR R1 TO 3 THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(FC).No.115 OF 2005 ====================== Dated this the 9th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in M.C. No.91/2002. The wife and children moved an application for maintenance and the Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- to the wife and Rs.200/- each to the children. The dispute is that the wife is living an adultery life and that the second child is not born to the revision petitioner in her. I find from the material that the revision petitioner had not really participated in the trial of the case and therefore he has been deprived of an opportunity to produce documents and let in evidence. Along with the revision he had produced one document which indicates that the second child got injured in a motor accident and he has been admitted in the hospital by one Gopalan Nair describing himself to be the father of the child. If, it is proved then R.P.(FC).No.115 OF 2005 2 there is a presentable case for the revision petitioner. I am not dwelling deep into the matter for the reason that I am inclined to grant opportunity to the parties to put meet the rival contentions. 2. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Family Court with a direction to permit both parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Permission be granted to cross examination of PW1 as well. At any rate the revision petitioner herein is directed to pay a some of Rs.500/- per month totally till a final decision is taken in the matter. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns