IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 RPFC.No. 207 of 2011() ---------------------- MC.101/2009 of the Family Court at Ernakulam .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- VIJAYAN, S/O LAKSHMIKUTTY, AGED 34 YRS. POOSHARIPPADY, VALYAPARAMBIL, KEZHEKKEPRAM, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SARASAMMA, D/O KUTTAPPAN, AGED 55, VALAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANTHYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHOBHA, D/O DAMODARAN, AGED 30 YRS. KANJIRAKKAD HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTHKARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULM. 2. ABIRAM VIJAYAN, S/O VIJAYAN, AGED 5 YEARS, KANJIRAKKAD HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTHKARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS MOTHER SHOBA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJESH THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: pm S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P (F.C) No.207 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November 2011 ORDER Revision is by the opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of `.2,000/- each to the petitioners in such proceedings, admittedly, his wife and child, by the Judge, Family Court, Ernakulam. Impeaching the correctness and legality of that order, he has come up with this revision. 2. Taking into account the submissions made by the counsel who appeared for the petitioner that the entire arrears of maintenance as ordered by the court below to the claimants/ respondents in the revision will be deposited within a reasonable time if the revision is admitted, notice was ordered to the respondents; but, after service, they have elected to remain absent. An order was also issued on the application of the petitioner staying the proceedings of the court below directing him to deposit the arrears of maintenance within one month. 3. When the revision came up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not deposited the arrears of maintenance, which he had agreed to for Crl. R.P No.207 OF 2011 2 issuing of notice to the respondents to have a disposal of the revision on merits. The impugned order would show that pending the proceedings the court below had directed him to pay interim maintenance to his wife and child. That was not complied with and thereupon he was set ex parte in the proceedings. The order declaring him ex parte for noncompliance of the direction for interim maintenance, is not contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though such an error is disclosed by the order in the proceedings conducted by the Judge, Family Court, taking into account that the revision petitioner has no disputes as regards the status of the claimants as his wife and child and also his liability to maintain them, I find, no interference with the order of the court below is called for where the sum awarded as maintenance is found to be just and reasonable. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge