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 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 169 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MA.576/2010 Dated 17/01/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- M.MANIKANDAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MANIKANDAN NIVAS,,27ND MILE MULLAMBARA ROAD, MANJERI. BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDNET ------------------------- RIJU.P.V, D/O.P.V.BALAN, SNEHA, BEACH ROAD,TANUR. BY ADV.SRI.JOICE GEORGE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No. 169 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Joseph, J. This is a review petition filed by the appellant in Mat.A.No. 576 of 2010. He is also the appellant in Mat.A. No. 575 of 2010 and the petitioner in R.P.F.C. No. 224 of 2010. By a common judgment, we accepted the request of the appellant/petitioner that he may be given an opportunity to substantiate his contentions, by setting aside the ex parte order passed against him in all the three cases. We had directed that the interim order passed in the R.P.F.C. shall continue in force till disposal of the petition. It was further directed that arrears of maintenance ordered by the Family Court shall be paid within one month from that date. 2. We heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. R.P.No. 169 of 2011 2 3. The interim order passed in the R.P.F.C. reads as follows: “Admit. Notice to respondents. There will be an interim stay on condition that the petitioner deposits half of the entire arrears within one month from today and on depositing the said amount, the respondents are free to withdraw the same.” Therefore, it is submitted that it was by a mistake that this fact was not brought to the notice of this court and the court directed that the interim order shall continue in force till disposal of the petition. In other words, it is contended that the interim order only provided for paying 50% of the arrears and there is no direction to pay maintenance falling due under the order. This is a fact which we readily accept, as is borne out from the interim order. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- It is also submitted that the appellant is earning Rs.8,000/- per month and he has to look after his aged parents and he may be permitted to pay at the rate of Rs.3,000/- R.P.No. 169 of 2011 3 This is in answer to the case of the learned counsel for the wife, who would submit that to protect the interest of the minor child the appellant may be directed to pay reasonable amount. 5. In such circumstances we review the judgment and delete the direction in the common judgment that the interim order passed in R.P.F.C. 224 of 2010 will continue in force till the disposal of the petition. Instead, we direct that the appellant shall pay at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month by way of maintenance to the wife and child for the period commencing from January, 2011 onwards. 6. This Review Petition is disposed of as above. Mat A. Nos. 575 & 576 of 2010 and RP.F.C. No.224 of 2010 are also disposed of as aforesaid. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm