IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 508 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/10/2007 IN MP.462/2004 IN MC.231/2000 of FAMILYCOURT, THRISSUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- RAVEENDRAN,S/O. KOLLARA MADHAVAN, CHENGALUR, RANDUKALLU DESOM, PUDUKAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND KARTHYAYANI, W/O. KOLLARA MADHAVAN, CHENGALUR, RANDUKALLU DESOM, PUDUKAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SREEKUMAR G.(CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SOBHANA,D/O. LATE OTTARATHIL VELAYUDHAN, MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VALLUR DESOM, THRISSUR. 2. MINOR REMYA,D/O. SOBHANA, REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SOBHANA, MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VALLUR DESOM, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, BYADV.MR.SAIJO HASSAN. MR.A.S.SABU, MR.RAJAN VELLOTH. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.13010/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.508/2007 DISMISSED 25/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHHAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.508 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thrissur in M.P.No.462/2004 in M.C.No.231/2000. The order reads as follows: “NBW - 26.11.2007”. 2. The revision petitioner is now represented by his mother with the allegation that the revision petitioner is a deaf and dumb person and the statement relied on by the family court for passing the order of maintenance in M.C.No.231/2000 is invalid in law for the reason that he is incapable of understanding the consequence of his action and had never understood the contentions in the statement. It was on the basis of that statement, the family court had ordered maintenance of Rs.400/= each to the wife and child. 3. In the revision petition it is contended that the revision petitioner, who is represented by his mother, had moved O.P.No.847/2000 to declare the order of maintenance and the proceedings therein as null and void and it is : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.508 OF 2007 pending consideration before that court. The prayer is not to initiate any action during the pendency of the original petition. 4. This Court is not in a position to analyse or understand the correctness of the matters for the reason that materials are not available. What ever it may be, it is submitted that the revision petitioner is a deaf and dumb person incapable of understanding. A legal proceeding is pending before the competent court challenging the correctness of the order in the MC. It is only desirable that execution petitions can be filed, but action be not initiated on the basis of those petitions to arrest the revision petitioner. I make it very clear that if a petition is not allowed to be filed, then there will be a bar for Section 125 of the Cr.P.C which precludes the party from filing a petition after 12 months. So when petitions are filed, let notice be issued to the revision petitioner herein and the matter be kept pending till a decision is taken in the original petition. I also direct the learned family court to consider and dispose of O.P.No.847/2000 as expeditiously as possible, : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.508 OF 2007 if it is not already disposed of, before 30.6.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.508 OF 2007