IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 1151 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MA.112/2007 .................... : REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MA NO.112/2007 --------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT GOMEZ, F.V.G.BHAVAN, PUNNATHALA NORTH, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM, NOW R/AT POST BOX NO.5673, RZAL KHAIMA, U.A.E., REP. BY HIS P/A SMT. BIATRIX .D'CRUZ, AGED 40, R/AT TC 2/ 829, MANCHADI VILA, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT IN RP/APPELLANT IN MA NO.112/2007 --------------------------------------------------------- BELCITA VINCENT GOMEZ, KALLIVILA VEEDU, KAKKOTTUMMOOLA, MAYYANADU P.O., KOLLAM-691 303. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, ALONG WITH MA NO. 112 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ------------------------------------------ R.P No.1151 of 2007 in Mat.Appeal No. 112 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January 2008 ORDER Kurian Joseph,J This petition is filed by the respondent to review the judgment dated 12-9-2007 in Mat. Appeal No. 112 of 2007. There was no appearance for the respondent./review petitioner. It is submitted that the review petitioner came to know about the order only on 17-10-2007. It is also seen from the review petition that the review petitioner was in Dubai at the relevant time. 2. The Mat. Appeal itself is filed against an exparte order in the matter of maintenance. Originally the maintenance granted to the respondent was at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-. It was enhanced by this Court to Rs.20,000/- Having regard to the contentions raised by the parties which are stated in extenso in the review petition and in the counter- affidavit we are of the view that it is only in the interest of justice and in the interest of the parties that an opportunity is given to the review petitioner to contest the matter on merits before the Family court itself. In that view of the matter we refrain from referring to any of the contentions since it is open to the parties to take all available contentions before the Family court. R.P No.1151 of 2007 in Mat.Appeal No. 112 of 2007 -2- 3. But the fact remains that for quite some time the respondent (wife) has not been receiving any maintenance. Therefore we are of the view that this review petition can be allowed only on terms. Accordingly this review petition is allowed on condition that the review petitioner pays Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent within two weeks from today; and if not the review petition itself will stand dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es