IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2006/ 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 RPFC.No. 249 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.301/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------------- PRAKASH, S/O. RAMAN, KURIKKUNNU CHARUVILA VEEDU, VALAKOM P.O., PODIYATTUVILA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------- 1. SUJATHA, D/O. KUNJUKUTTY, KURIKUNNIRAPPIL VEEDU, ARACKAL, VALAKOM P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. PRASEETHA, AGED 9 YEARS, D/O. SUJATHA, -DO-. REP. BY 1ST RESPONDENT MOTHER -DO- -DO- BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J --------------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C) No. 249 of 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2006 ORDER The revision is filed by the husband challenging the order passed in favour of his wife and daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Family Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month each to the wife and daughter. 2. The revision petitioner married the first respondent on 18.5.1993. The wife stated that the husband is a drunkard and he used to ill-treat her. She was constrained to go to her parental house. Thereafter the husband requested the wife to go with him and apologized for his previous conduct. She went along with her husband. Again she had to return to her house due to ill-treatment by the husband. She filed MC 377/98 claiming maintenance. In that proceeding, the husband assured that he would maintain her and reside in a rented house. Recording that submission M.C. 377/98 was dismissed. They resided together in a rented building for one year and thereafter RP(FC)NO.249/2006 2 shifted to another house constructed by the parents of the wife. It is alleged that thereafter the husband became more arrogant and even objected the relatives of the wife visiting her. It is further alleged that after consuming alcohol, the husband used to manhandle her. Further allegation is that the husband has now contracted marriage with a Christian lady after conversion to Christianity. The husband is a mason and it is alleged that he gets Rs.3,000/- per month as income from that job. It is also alleged that he gets another sum of Rs.3,000/- per month from his avocation as a pastor. 3. Before the Family court, the husband engaged a lawyer. But he did not appear before the court. The husband did not co-operate in the counseling process. He even did not appear on the subsequent postings of the case. The Family Court set him exparte. The evidence of the wife in the form of proof affidavit was considered by the Family Court. The daughter is now aged 11 years and she goes to school. Considering the needs of the daughter and wife, the Family court fixed maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to each of them. RP(FC)NO.249/2006 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended even if the husband did not appear before court, the Family court was not justified in allowing the application and in awarding an exorbitant amount as maintenance. He relied on the decision reported in Chari Vijayan V. Achuthan Vasu (1973 KLT 849). It was held therein that the attention to the pleadings and evidence in a case by the court even where the defendants do not appear and they are exparte shows a healthy trend. In many cases the defendants may be unable to appear not because they have no cause to defend but because they may be unable to face a litigation primarily for want of funds. The courts owe a duty to weigh the merits of the case even when there is such non- appearance. This decision was followed in Haridas v. Madhavi Amma (1987(2) KLT 701). The decisions referred to above have no application in the case on hand since the court below has considered the materials on record and the evidence tendered by the wife. No application was submitted by the husband at any point of time before the Family Court to set aside the exparte order. He did not co-operate with the counseling process. The allegations levelled against him were not denied. One of the RP(FC)NO.249/2006 4 allegation is that he was behaving cruelly towards the wife after consuming alcohol. Another allegation is that he is now residing with another woman. Since the husband did not appear before the court and adduce evidence, the Family Court cannot be blamed for relying on the evidence tendered by the wife. There is no dispute that the petitioners before the Family Court are unable to maintain themselves. Even in the Memorandum of Revision, no acceptable reasons are stated by the petitioner for his non appearance before the Family court. It is stated in grounds 10 & 11 that the husband has to remain exparte since he had no sufficient means to pursue the litigation. To appear for counseling, a person need not be rich. Non co-operation in the counseling process is a clear indication that the husband did not want to face the allegations levelled against him. The amount awarded by the Family Court is just and reasonable. No grounds are made out for interference in revision. RP(FC) lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl RP(FC)NO.249/2006 5