IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 106 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.278/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- SUNIL BHASKAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE BHASKAR, "PRABHA", KALVAKULAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.K.KUSUMAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. SEETHA SUNIL, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.VIJAYAN, W/O.SUNIL BHASKAR, 101 A CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. ARJUN SUNIOL, MINOR, AGED 14 YEARS, S/O.SUNIL BHASKAR, 101 A CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. VAISHNAV SUNIL, MINOR, 8 YEARS, S/O.SUNIL BHASKAR, 101 A CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL FOR R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 106 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition challenges an order passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. The order directs him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/-p.m. to his wife and two minor children. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the impugned order in so far as it relates to the direction for payment of maintenance to the minor children. He challenges only the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in so far as it relates to the first claimant/wife. That direction also the petitioner wants to challenge on the ground that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. She has sufficient income from her employment and occupation. An opportunity to substantiate that plea was not given to the petitioner. Rather the petitioner could not avail of that opportunity. The learned counsel submits that subject to any appropriate condition, the petitioner may be granted an R.P.F.C.No. 106 of 2008 2 opportunity to substantiate his contention that the wife is not unable to maintain herself and has income from her employment/engagement to look after herself. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents produced will itself bear out the fact that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. An opportunity may be granted to the husband, subject to any appropriate terms, it is submitted. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife opposes the application, but in the course of discussions accepts that the claimant/wife has no objection against grant of such an opportunity, but appropriate directions may be issued to ensure that such an opportunity is not being claimed only to further protract the proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already discharged the liability under the impugned order to pay maintenance of the three claimants, including the wife, till the date of this petition. The petitioner is willing to continue to pay such amounts till disposal of the petition afresh, but the learned Judge R.P.F.C.No. 106 of 2008 3 of the Family Court may be directed to consider the matter afresh on merits as to whether the claimant/wife is entitled to separate maintenance and if so at what rate. 5. I find the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to be absolutely fair and reasonable. I am satisfied, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had not adduced the requisite evidence before the court below, that he can be given a fresh opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his contention. 6. In the result: a) This revision petition is accordingly allowed. b) The impugned order in so far as it relates to the two minor children is upheld. c) The order granting maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. is set aside on the following terms and conditions. i) The petitioner shall deposit on or before 9.12.2008 the entire balance amount, if any, payable under the impugned order to the wife and children till 16.11.2008. ii) The parties shall appear before the Family Court on R.P.F.C.No. 106 of 2008 4 10.12.2008. If payments have been made, the impugned direction to pay maintenance to the wife alone shall stand set aside and the learned Judge shall dispose of the claim of the wife afresh. iii) If the amounts are not paid as directed, the learned Judge shall make a record of that fact on 10.12.2008 and thereupon the impugned order to pay maintenance to the wife shall stand revived. iv) There shall be a further direction that the learned Judge must dispose of the case afresh as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from 10.12.2008. The claimant wife shall also be given opportunity to adduce further evidence if any. Till the disposal of the case, interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. shall be paid to the claimant/wife w.e.f. 16.11.2008. (R. BASANT) Judge tm