IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1929 RPFC.No. 461 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.172/2003 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- JAMES JOSHUA, OTTAPLA KIZHAKKETHIL, NEDUMONKAVU P.O., KOODAL, KALANJOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & STATE -------------------------------------------- 1. MINI JAMES, THANNIKALAYIL HOUSE, MALLASSERY P.O., PRAMADOM VILLAGE. 2. JIBIN (MINOR), S/O. MINI JAMES, REP. BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J ========================== R.P.(F.C.) NO. 461 OF 2007 ========================== Dated this the 12th day of November, 2007. ORDER The revision petitioner, who is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent, was the counter petitioner in M.C. No.172/2003 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnised on 08.08.1994. The 2nd respondent was born on 19.10.1998. The marital partners separated on 22.03.1999. It was thereafter that the 1st respondent filed the M.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per month to each of the applicants. As per the impugned order dated 10.01.2005, the Family Court allowed the application at the rates claimed by the respondent herein. The order passed was an ex parte order without giving the revision petitioner an opportunity to challenge the evidence of the 1st respondent examined as PW1 by way of cross examination and also adducing his own independent evidence. 2. As per the impugned order, the revision petitioner is to pay maintenance to respondents 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750 per month respectively from the date of the petition namely 14.03.2002. R.P.(F.C.) No. 461/2007 : 2: 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner prays for an opportunity to cross examine PW1 and also to adduce rebuttal evidence. I am inclined to grant the revision petitioner an opportunity in that behalf but only if he deposits substantial amounts towards the arrears of maintenance. Accordingly, if the revision petitioner deposits before the Family Court, Thiruvalla a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) towards the arrears of maintenance within one month from today and continues to deposit at the rate of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month from January, 2008 onwards towards future maintenance, he shall be entitled to have a contested disposal of M.C. No. 172/2003. In case the petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount of Rs.35,000/- within one month from today, the impugned ex parte final order dated 10.01.2005 shall stand set aside and the revision petitioner shall be given an opportunity to recall PW1 for cross examination and adduce rebuttal evidence to substantiate his contentions. In case the revision petitioner does not deposit the sum of Rs.35,000/- within one month from today, the impugned order will stand confirmed and this revision petition will stand dismissed. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. R.P.(F.C.) No. 461/2007 : 3: rv