IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 OP (FC).No. 528 of 2011(R) -------------------------- OP.780/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SUDARSANA KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.M.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT SHOBHANA MANDIRAM, POOVATTOOR (EAST), KALAYAPURAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUSHAMA, D/O.SARASAMMA, MUTTUKONATHU, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHEPRA MURI, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691512. 2. NANDHU, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SUDARSHANA KUMAR, MUTTUKONATHU, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHEPRA MURI, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691512. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. (F.C.) No. 528 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of February 2011 JUDGMENT Joseph J., The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. The respondents filed M.C. No. 510 of 2005 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara claiming maintenance. That was disposed of vide order dated 19.10.2006 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at Rs.600/- per month from the date of the maintenance claim. The respondents also filed O.P. No. 780 of 2005 seeking maintenance. The Court ordered maintenance at Rs.800/- and Rs.700/- per month respectively to the respondents and they were allowed to realise Rs.54,000/- against the past maintenance. Ext.P4 is the E.P. No.14 of 2010 in O.P. No. 780 of 2005 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara and Ext.P5 is the consent certificate issued by the 1st respondent to Zilla Sainik Officer. O.P. (F.C.) No. 528 of 2011 :2: 2. Ext.P3 is an order passed in the year 2006. The petitioner challenges the same in the year 2011. On this ground only we feel that we need not interfere with the matter. Still further we are not shown any good reason available under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with Ext.P3 order. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner had filed Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the exparte decree, but the same was dismissed. Therefore it is also a case where the petitioner had been exparte in the matter. The application to set aside the exparte order remains dismissed and also remains unchallenged. Without prejudice to any of the remedy which the petitioner may have in case the petitioner has to make overlapping in the matter of claiming maintenance, this Writ Petition is dismissed. K.M. JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/