IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 RPFC.No. 4 of 2009 --------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DTD. 24/11/2008 IN C.M.P. NO. 1430/08 IN M.C. NO 13/2000 OF FAMILY COURT KASARAGOD) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VALAPPIL ABDUL KHADER, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.LATE V.P.ABDUL RAHMAN, KAVVAYI P.O. PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIYAMBI C.M. AGED 20 YEARS, KOTTAMMAL P.O. ELAMBACHI, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 4 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner has suffered an ex parte order directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. He filed an application to get the ex parte order set aside. The learned Judge of the Family Court indulgently allowed that prayer subject to the condition that maintenance payable for a period of 5 months at the stipulated rate of Rs.2,000/- must be paid. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. 2. What is the grievance? The petitioner admittedly was not available in India and the contention which he wants to raise is that the wife has no justifiable reason to insist on separate maintenance. The other contention is only about the quantum of maintenance payable. According to the petitioner, though he was abroad, he was not working and he was in R.P.(FC) No. 4 of 2009 -: 2 :- search of a job. 3. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am not at all persuaded to agree that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction deserves to be invoked against the impugned order. The learned Judge of the Family Court has indulgently granted the prayer to set aside the ex parte order. The time stipulated for payment is already over, it is submitted. I am, however, satisfied that the petitioner can be granted time till 19/1/09 to pay/deposit the amount and claim the advantage of the impugned order. If deposited, the amount shall forthwith be released to the claimant. 4. With the above observations, this RP(FC) is dismissed. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 4 of 2009 -: 3 :-