IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 376 of 2009() ----------------------------------- MC.55/2008 of THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ PETITIONR --------------------------------------- KRISHNASRE D/O.USHADEVI, NARAYANEEYATHIL HOUSE, MEMANA MURI, OCHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.M.N.MAYA SRI.M.A.PRABHU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------------- 1. ROHIT THILAK, AGED 30 YEARS, USHASIL, UMBARNAD, KULLUMALA PO, MAVELIKKARA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV.MR.C.A.CHACKO THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, ALONG WITH RPFC. NO.376 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. MO.10116/2009 IN RPFC. NO.376/2009 DISMISSED 20/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.376 OF 2009 & R.P.(F.C).No.411 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010. O R D E R R.P.(F.C).No.376 OF 2009 is filed by the wife against the order of maintenance claiming enhancement and R.P. (F.C).No.411 OF 2009 is filed by the husband against the order of maintenance with a prayer to set aside the order on the ground that the wife does not have any right to get maintenance. The court below after consideration of the materials had ordered a sum of Rs.1,000/= to be paid as maintenance from 28..3.2008. It is against that decision both these revisions are preferred. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in R.P.(F.C).No.411 OF 2009 would submit before me that while the case was being proceeded with, the lawyer was absent on a particular day and when adjournment was sought for, it was not granted and therefore, the party himself cross examined and on account of his inexperience, he was not in a position to do things properly and even did : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.376 OF 2009 & R.P.(F.C).No.411 OF 2009 not mark the documents which was really necessary to be looked into the case. I find that the document alleged to be executed by the parties is produced before the family court which requires consideration to decide the case. I do not want to elaborate further on the ground that it will prejudice one of the parties. Since I am inclined to grant an opportunity, I also impose a condition for getting that benefit by directing the revision petitioner in R.P.(F.C).No.411 OF 2009 to pay a sum of Rs.15,750/= to the wife on or before 25.2.2010 and continue to pay at the rate of Rs.750/= per month till a final decision is taken in the matter. If the amount is paid on or before that date, the parties be permitted to produce further evidence and documents in support of their respective contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. If the amount is not paid on or before 25..2.2010, the benefit granted is withdrawn and the revision filed by the husband will stand dismissed and the claim petition for enhanced maintenance shall be tried by the family : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.376 OF 2009 & R.P.(F.C).No.411 OF 2009 court on that regard. Parties are directed to appear before the family court on 25.2.2010. It is also made clear that if any amount is already paid, that shall be adjusted towards Rs.15,750/= and the balance need alone be paid. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl