IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 166 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/04/2008 IN CRMP.696/07 IN MC.220/2004 of .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- V.V.SUDHESAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, VALIYAKALAYIL HOUSE, KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. PRASEENA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.SULOCHANA, PUTHENVEEDU, ATHUMBUMKULAM P.O.KONNY. 2. SANAJ V.S., AGED 14 (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT HIS MOTHER PRASEENA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.SULOCHANA, PUTHENVEEDU, ATHUMBUMKULAM P.O.KONNY. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 166 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has suffered an ex parte order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and child at the rate of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively. That was an ex parte order. The petitioner had entered appearance. He is employed in Soudi Arabia. He did not appear in court on the hearing dates and that was the reason why there was an ex parte order. The impugned order shows that there was a direction to pay interim maintenance which has also not been complied with by the petitioner. The impugned order also shows that as on the date of the order there was 42 months maintenance in arrears. The learned Judge of the Family Court indulgently directed that 1/3rd of the amount alone need be deposited as a condition to set aside the ex parte R.P.(FC) No. 166 of 2008 -: 2 :- order. The petitioner did not deposit the amount in time. Consequently, as the amount was not deposited within time, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte order. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The short contention is that the amount directed to be deposited is excessive. I am unable to agree with the said contention. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is also admitted. The petitioner is employed abroad. A contention is raised that the wife is living in adultery, it is submitted. That contention was not substantiated, even though the petitioner had entered appearance before the Family Court. In any view of the matter, I am unable to agree that the condition imposed in the impugned order is unjust or it warrants interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction . 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted some further time to make the payment. I do not find much grace or merit in this request also. However, I am satisfied that a week's further time can be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount and avoid the ex parte order being enforced against him. 4. Considering the nature of the relief which I propose to R.P.(FC) No. 166 of 2008 -: 3 :- grant, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondents/claimants in this revision petition. 5. In the result, this RP(FC) is allowed in part. It is directed that if the petitioner complies with the direction regarding deposit of the amount in the order dated 21/4/08 on or before 21/6/08, the learned Judge of the Family Court shall reckon that as sufficient compliance with the order dated 21/4/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge