IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 58 of 2005() --------------------- MC.291/2002 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- K.K.THAMBI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KAVUNGAL KESAVAN, PADINJARE VEMPALLUR DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONERS : ------------------------------------ 1. SREEDEVI, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.KARUTHANDAN SUBRAMANIAN, ENGANDIYOOR AMSOM & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. SREEPATHY, AGED 8 YEARS, S/O.1ST PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT, REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 58 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thrissur in M.C.291/02. The husband has preferred this revision against the exparte order. The said MC had been preferred to enhance the maintenance of the wife and child from Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- respectively to Rs.5,000/- each. A perusal of the order would show that the order is passed on an affidavit filed by the petitioners. I had perused the records and I find that the present revision petitioner moved an application before the Family Court on 31.12.04 to set aside the exparte order, the seal and the initial therein would indicate that it has been filed on 31.12.04 but the Court posted it to 6.1.2005 and then to 4.3.05 and then dismissed the application. I find that the said posting itself was not proper for the reason the Court had already disposed of the maintenance case on 31.12.04 on which date the petition was filed. Similarly the very same contention regarding the income R.P.(F.C.) NO. 58 OF 2005 -:2:- was taken in the main petition as well and on considering the same the Court granted a maintenance of Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- respectively. So there has been no proper application of mind in determining the case and therefore an opportunity has to be given in this case. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the Family Court and remand the case back to the Family Court for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to both the sides to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then determine the matter afresh in accordance with law. Parties are permitted to appear before the Family Court on 23.3.10 and if the wife does not enter appearance on that date the revision petitioner shall take out notice to her. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-