IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.No. 175 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.254/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... REVISION PETITIONER(RESPONDENT IN THE FAMILY COURT) -------------------------------------------------------------- SONY C.SIMON, S/O.SIMON PHILIP, AGED 38, CHITTEZHATH HOUSE, KOOTHAPADY, THAMMANAM P.O., KOCHI-32. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS(PETITINERS IN THE FAMILY COURT) ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. LISHA @ NISHA @ GISHA SONY, D/O.LATE PATHROSE, AGED 30, EDAVAZHYTHARA HOUSE, KILIYATTUNADA, SOUTH GATE P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ASWIN C.SONY, S/O.SONY C.SIMON, AGED 3, EDAVAZHYTHARA HOUSE, KILIYATTUNADA, SOUTH GATE P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, (MINOR REP. BY GISHA SONY, MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, FIRST RESPONDENT). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.175 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. ORDER Respondents though served remain absent. 2. This revision is in challenge of order dated 31.12.2008 of the Family Court, Kottayam (at Ettumanoor) allowing maintenance in favour of respondents as per a joint statement signed between the parties. As per that joint statement, petitioner is to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1, his wife and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2, the son aged three years at the time of the application for maintenance. 3. According to the petitioner, he has not voluntarily signed such a joint statement and instead, he happened to sign the joint statement as the counsellor exerted undue influence and fraud in arriving at a decision as the one stated in the joint statement. Petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this revision. 4. It is seen from the annexures produced along with this revision that parties were sent for counseling on 26.12.2008 and on the same day the impugned settlement was arrived as per which petitioner is to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Petition preferred by the respondents was accordingly disposed of by the learned Judge of the Family Court as per order dated RP(FC) No.175/2009 2 31.12.2008. Learned counsel contends that petitioner did not even get an opportunity to file a counter statement. Learned counsel pointed out that on 3.1.2009 petitioner has preferred a complaint to the Judge of the Family Court stating about the alleged compulsion on the part of the counsellor and unilateral decision as per which he was made to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents. It is also his case that he has no sufficient means to pay the total sum of Rs.3,500/- per month. It is seen from Annexure-2 that with reference to the complaint preferred by the petitioner, he was called for an enquiry by the learned Judge. Counsel states that nothing transpired on the complaint preferred by him. 5. In this revision I am not going into the allegation of undue influence and fraud raised by the petitioner. It is seen that petitioner did not get an opportunity to file objection raising his contentions. It is also seen that total amount of maintenance awarded and made payable by the petitioner is Rs.3,500/- per month of which Rs.2,500/- is awarded to the son aged three years. Joint statement does not disclose in what way the quantum of maintenance was arrived at. In the circumstances, I am inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. 6. At the same time, respondents who came with a request for maintenance allowance cannot be forgotten. They cannot also be asked to wait until the application is finally disposed of after a contest. Therefore, I consider it appropriate in the ends of justice that petitioner is directed to pay maintenance by way of interim arrangement to the respondents. He has to pay RP(FC) No.175/2009 3 interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 from 31.12.2008 onwards and until the disposal of M.C.No.254 of 2008 by the court below. Petitioner is granted three weeks time from today to deposit the arrears at the above said rate from 31.12.2008 till 1.7.2009, in the trial court for payment to the respondents. He shall continue to deposit maintenance allowance at the above said rate from 1.7.2009 onwards and until disposal of M.C.No.254 of 2008. In the result, revision petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and the case is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file objection. Parties shall appear in the court below on 18.7.2009. Crl.M.A.No.4855 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks