IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 OP (FC).No. 1012 of 2010(R) --------------------------- MC.559/2008 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER -------------- M.K.ABDUL JALEEL,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA,MANJERIKKADAN HOUSE,CHERUKULAM PO PAYYANAD,MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SRI.K.T.THOMAS (KANNAMPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHAHINA,AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.UNEEN,THALAPPIL HOUSE, KADANNAMANNA AMSOM,POOZHIKKUNNU, PO VALLIKKAPPATTA MALAPPURAM. 2. MUHAMMED SANOOL(MINOR), (MINOR REP.BY GUARDIAN IST RESPONDENT,MOTHER SMT.SHAHINA. ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * O.P.(F.C) No.1012 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P4, to pass orders on Ext.P3 and to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P4 till a decision is taken on Ext.P3. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent is the child of the 1st respondent. The case of the 1st respondent is that the 2nd respondent is the child of the petitioner born in the matrimony with the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed M.C.No.559 of 2008 seeking maintenance for the child. The petitioner entered appearance and filed counter statement. But the petitioner is set ex parte. Ext.P1 is the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Noting the absence of the petitioner and also that interim maintenance was not paid, the M.C was allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.500/- per O.P.(F.C) No.1012 of 2010 2 month to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Exts.P3 and P3(a) which are applications to set aside the ex parte order and the delay petition. However, by Ext.P4 order which is said to be an order passed under Section 128 Cr.P.C, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested and produced before the court, no payment and no explanation for non payment of arrears of Rs.94,500/- and the petitioner was sent to the jail for imprisonment for 12 months. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that pursuant to interim order passed on 06/12/2010, the petitioner has deposited one half of the amount and that has been released to the respondent. We feel that, in the interests of justice, a decision should be taken on Exts.P3 and P3(a). Accordingly, we direct the Family Court, Malappuram to take a decision on Ext.P3(a) application for condonation of delay and if the delay is condoned, to take a decision on Ext.P3 application and the same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If Ext.P3 application is allowed, then fresh orders shall be passed in O.P.(F.C) No.1012 of 2010 3 M.C.No.559/2008 within a period of two months from the date on which Ext.P3 application is allowed. Proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of Ext.P3(a) and if Ext.P3(a) application is allowed, till the disposal of Ext.P3 application subject to the condition that the appellant will pay a further sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) to the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from today. 4. The O.P.(F.C) is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge O.P.(F.C) No.1012 of 2010 4 O.P.(F.C) No.1012 of 2010 5 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010