IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 35 of 2009() --------------------- CMP 1191, 1192/08 IN MC.853/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAKKEER, S/O. MOHAMMED PALLIYALIL HOUSE, POST PUTHUPPALLI TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O. MUHAMMED PALLIYALIL HOUSE, POST PUTHUPPALLI TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHAREEF S/O. MOHAMMED, PALLIYALIL HOUSE POST PUTHUPPALLI, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ MUHAMMED, S/O. BAVA HAJI PALLIYALIL HOUSE, P.O. PUTHUPPALLY TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 35 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners had suffered an ex parte order directing them to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- each to their father, the claimant, who is the respondent herein. The petitioners filed application to set aside the ex parte order. That application was a belated one. The same was filed along with an application for condonation of delay of two months. 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court by the impugned order indulgently granted the prayer to set aside the ex parte order on condition that the entire amount due under the impugned order was paid by 1.1.2009. The amount has been deposited. The ex parte order now stands set aside. 3. It is submitted at the Bar that the claimant/father has filed an application to withdraw the amount in deposit. It is at this juncture that the petitioners have come before this Court to challenge the impugned order under which the ex parte order was R.P.F.C.No. 35 of 2009 2 set aside subject to conditions. The petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the condition imposed. 4. I have rendered my anxious consideration to the contentions raised. Basically it appears that the question is one of quantum and whether the claimant/father is unable to maintain himself. I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order suffers from any such vice as to justify or warrant the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Needless to say, when the learned Judge of the Family Court disposes of the matter afresh, the learned Judge must make appropriate observation regarding the adjustment/ application of the amount that has already been deposited in pursuance of the impugned order. The same shall now be released to the claimant/father forthwith. 5. With the above observations this R.P.F.C. is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm