IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 43 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/01/2008 IN CMP.2401/2007 IN MC.567/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER : PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------- ISMAIL, S/O.MOIDU @ UNNI, KANHANGATTU VALAPPIL, OTHALUR WEST, KIZHAKKARA, PONNANI. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------- AMINAKUTTY, KAMPURATH HOUSE, ALAMKODE AMSOM, CHERUMUKKU DESOM, PONNANI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.(C).No.43 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against a common order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissing two applications - one filed to set aside an exparte order and the other filed to condone the delay of 819 days in filing the said petition. 2. The learned Judge indulgently directed that the delay shall stand condoned and the order shall stand set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits the entire amount of maintenance which was directed to be paid. Time was granted till 23.01.08 to make the said payment. On 23.01.08, the amount was not deposited and thereafter the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing both the applications. 3. The petitioner during the relevant period was employed abroad. Marriage and paternity are not disputed. The direction is to pay only an amount of Rs.1,250/- for the wife and Rs.800/- for the child. No amount has been paid towards the amounts due under the order so far. 4. The petitioner has come to this Court lamenting that the condition imposed is perversely excessive and unduly harsh. R.P.F.(C).No.43 of 2008 2 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants to rely on a document in which he had allegedly paid an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- to the claimant on 11.09.06. For the purpose of arguments, I shall assume the same to be correct. It is very evident that the said amount was paid for return of the property which the petitioner retained as a trustee and which property really belongs to the claimant/wife. The said argument cannot hence be valuable to the petitioner. 6. I am satisfied that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is eminently correct and the same does not warrant any interference at all. 7. Lastly and finally the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was passed on 09.01.08. The petitioner was directed to make the payment by 23.01.08. The petitioner may be given some further time to make the payment, it is prayed. 8. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that even without issuing notice to the respondents/claimants, the said request can be accepted. R.P.F.(C).No.43 of 2008 3 9. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, allowed in part. The impugned order is upheld in all other respects. But the petitioner is granted time till 15.03.08 to make the payment of the amount as ordered on 09.01.08. If payment is made by that date, it shall be reckoned by the learned Judge of the Family Court as sufficient compliance of the order dated 09.01.08. The amount deposited shall straightaway be released to the claimants. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-