IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 RPFC.No. 288 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/01/2009 IN CMP 1219 /2008 IN CC.926/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- K.N.JAIN, S/O.K.K.NARAYANAN, KALATHIL VEEDU, EZHUPUNNA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.VRINDA PAUL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. ALLI P.B., D/O.BALAN, THAREPARAMBU HOUSE, PALLIKUTHU, CHUNGATHARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ANANTHAKRISHNAN, S/O.K.N.JAIN, REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT - MOTHER - GUARDIAN. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.288 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009. ORDER Respondents though served remained absent. Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. This revision is against the refusal to set aside the exparte order for payment of maintenance in M.C.No.926 of 2007 of the Family Court, Malappuram. Learned Judge directed petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.1,200/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- to respondent No.2, per month from the date of petition (31.12.2007). Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1219 of 2008 to set aside the exparte order. As per order dated 8.1.2009 learned Judge directed petitioner, as condition for setting aside the exparte order to deposit Rs.5,000/- on or before 28.1.2009. Petitioner was not able to comply with that direction. Accordingly C.M.P.No.1219 of 2008 was dismissed. This revision is in challenge of that order. 3. As per order passed by this Court on 5.8.2009 petitioner has deposited the sum of Rs.5,000/- in the court below. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that deposit shall be treated as in compliance of order dated 8.1.2009 on C.M.P.No.1219 of 2008. It is contended by learned counsel that respondent No.1 is presently employed in Taluk Office, Nilambur as U.D.Clerk drawing basic pay of Rs.7,650/-. That is a matter which petitioner RP(FC) No.288 of 2009 2 has to agitate in the court below. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the case. At the same time I direct that petitioner shall pay interim maintenance to respondent No.2 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from this day onwards and until disposal of the petition in the court below. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside. Consequently the order in M.C.No.926 of 2007 is set aside and the case is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the petitioner to contest the case and opportunity for both sides to adduce evidence. It is directed that petitioner shall pay interim maintenance to respondent No.2 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from this day and until disposal of the petition. Amount in deposit can be withdrawn by the respondents and such amount will be adjusted in the amount if any respondents are found entitled at the time of disposal of M.C.No.926 of 2007. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 30.10.2009. In case respondents do not appear in that court on that day notice shall be issued to them from that court for appearance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks