IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 51 of 2004(A) ---------------------- MC.117/1997 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S):/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ UNNIMON S/O. VELAPPAN, VALLOOKKADAN HOUSE, THORAVU VILLAGE, PAZHAYI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ 1. SHEELA, D/O. RAVUNNI, OOTTOLI HOUSE, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, VENDOR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. PRANAY, AGED 6 1/2 YEARS, MINOR REP.BY 1ST RESPONDENT SHEELA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(FC) 51 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This is a revision petition preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thrissur in M.C.117/97 which is a petition filed for maintenance by a minor aged 6½ years from the revision petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the son of the revision petitioner. When the matter came up before the trial court first, it found that the child is an illegitimate child of the revision petitioner and the Court directed him to pay a monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/-. Against that decision R.P. 82/99 was filed and this Court by its order directed the revision petitioner to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.300/- per month and permitted him to move an application for D.N.A. Test. There was a direction to appear before the Family Court on 14.8.2003 and pay without fail the interim maintenance before the 10th day of every month. The revision petitioner did not appear before the trial court and did not move the Court for any R.P.FC 51 OF 2004 -:2:- DNA test and therefore in fact did not comply with the orders of the High Court. Therefore taking into consideration the materials available and as there was no additional particulars supplied, the trial court directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the minor child at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. Today also there is no proper assistance from the counsel or from the party and the averments in the revision memorandum is only with respect to the fact that he was laid up on 14.8.2003. It can be seen that the Court passed an order on 27.12.2003 which means he had not moved his little finger to comply with the orders of the Court or to utilize the opportunity given by the High Court to make further evidence in the case. So it appears that the revision petition has failed to substantiate his contention in spite of the opportunity given and therefore one cannot find fault with the Family Court for arriving at a decision as held by it. Therefore the revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-