IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 307 of 2008() ---------------------- M.C.NO.144/06 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. REVISION PETITIONER: (RESPONDENT) ----------------------------------------------------- PRAMOD PAKKALA, S/O.VISHWANATHA PAKKALA, KUTHUKADY HOUSE, BEDAGANNUR VILLAGE, PUTHUR TALUK, MANGALORE, DK DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER) -------------------------- VANITHA.B., W/O.PRAMOD PAKKALA, S/O.MAHABALA RAI, MEGONABELINJE HOUSE, YATHADUKA, P.O., KUMBADEJA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. ADV. SRI.T.MADHU FOR R THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 307 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 ORDER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner to assail an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance to the claimant - allegedly his wife, at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. 2. The order passed was an ex parte order. Even though a contention is raised about the existence of a valid marriage, it is submitted that that controversy has now been settled and it has been accepted that the the claimant is the wife of the petitioner. It was an ex parte order passed. The petitioner only wants an opportunity to contest the proceedings. It is pointed out that even before the impugned order was passed, an application to set aside the ex parte order had been filed which was dismissed by the court. R.P.(FC) No. 307 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that as agreed by the parties now a further opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the learned Judge of the Family Court subject to appropriate terms and conditions to be fixed by this Court. I take note of the submission made at the Bar that there has been a subsequent settlement accepting matrimony. In these circumstances, this petition, I am satisfied, can be allowed as agreed subject to terms to be fixed by the court. 4. In the result: (a) This RP(FC ) is allowed subject to conditions. (b) The impugned order shall stand set aside and the learned Judge of the Family Court shall dispose of the matter afresh after giving the parties a further opportunity to substantiate their contentions on the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioner shall deposit the entire amount due under the impugned order till 3/10/08 before the Family Court on or before 1/11/08. (ii) The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 3/11/08 and the Family Court shall thereafter dispose of the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within a R.P.(FC) No. 307 of 2008 -: 3 :- period of four months from that date. (iii) The amounts, if deposited, shall forthwith be released to the claimant. (iv) Until the case is disposed of afresh, the petitioner shall continue to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem reckoning the same as a direction for payment of interim maintenance. (v) If the amounts are not paid, the learned Judge of the Family Court shall make record of that fact on 3/11/08 and thereupon the impugned order shall revive and shall be executable. (vi) The coercive processes for non-compliance with the order shall not be executed against the petitioner till 3/11/08. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the respondent for production before the court below when parties appear on 3/11/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 307 of 2008 -: 4 :- R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.A. NO. 3102 OF 2008 IN R.P.(FC) NO. OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September 2008 ORDER This petition is to condone the delay of 223 days in filing a revision petition. I have heard the parties on merits. I am proceeding to dispose of the revision petition straightaway. Appropriate terms shall be imposed while disposing of the final order. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. Petition allowed. Delay condoned, Number the RP(FC). R.P.(FC) No. 307 of 2008 -: 5 :- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/