IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 36 of 2008() --------------------- MC.400/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- MANOJ K., URAPPUKUZHIYIL VEEDU, CHUNKAPPARA POST, KOOTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SALINI P.T., POLACKAL PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, PADINJATTUMCHERI MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. 2. MANISHA P.T., D/O.MANOJ AND SALINI, DO. DO. DO. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.36 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- and Rs.700/- per mensum respectively to the claimants - the wife and daughter of the petitioner. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is not disputed. The wife advanced reasons to justify her separate residence. The petitioner offered to maintain the claimants on condition that they live with the petitioner. The petitioner remained ex parte. He did not adduce any evidence. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on the uncontroverted evidence of PW1, came to the conclusion that the wife had sufficient reason to justify her claim for separate maintenance. Accordingly, an ex parte order directing payment of maintenance was passed. 3. The petitioner has come to this court challenging the said order. Why was no application filed to set aside the ex parte order? To this question, it was answered that a petition had R.P.F.C.No.36/2008 2 actually been filed and the same is pending before the Family Court. A report of the learned Judge of the Family Court was called for. The report reveals an entirely different story. After the ex parte order was passed, an application was filed to set aside the ex parte order. It was disposed of by agreement between the parties. It was agreed that half the amount due by way of maintenance shall be paid and the ex parte order shall be set aside. The case was posted to 30/8/2007 for deposit of the amount. The amount was not deposited. The case was adjourned to 31/8/2007. On that day also, there was no payment or representation. It was, in these circumstances, that the said petition was dismissed. Suppressing that fact and feigning ignorance about the manner in which the said application was dismissed, the petitioner had come to this court. 4. The ex parte order now remains. The petition to set aside the ex parte order stands dismissed. The petitioner can now challenge the order only on merits. Marriage, paternity and separate residence having been admitted and there being no semblance of explanation as to how and why the claimant/wife is not entitled for separate maintenance in evidence, I am of the R.P.F.C.No.36/2008 3 opinion that the Family Court was eminently correct in directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- and Rs.700/- per mensum respectively to the wife and the child. Going by the indications available about the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimants, the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid must be held to be most moderate and reasonable. In short, the impugned order does not warrant any interference on any ground. 5. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.36/2008 4 R.P.F.C.No.36/2008 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008