IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 13 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 5/2009 IN MC.562/2005 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- SUDARSHANAN NAIR P.G., S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PALLIPURATHU NADAU, PALLIPURATHU PANCHAYATH, PALLIPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.T.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SANDHYA, D/O.VISWANATHAN, POONTHOPPU, PALLIPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. HARITHA (MINOR), -DO- 3. HAREESH (MINOR), -DO- (MINOR PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, THE IST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) FOR R1 TO R3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- RPFC No.13 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondents 2 and 3, the minor children born out of the wedlock of them. In this revision petition he challenges the order dated 4.12.2009 in Crl.M.P.460/2009, which is an application filed by him for withdrawing the warrant issued by the Family Court, Alappuzha upon an execution petition that CMP No.5/2009 filed by the respondents herein. 2. The respondents herein approached the Family Court by filing M.C.562/2005 for maintenance, which was allowed by order dated 15.5.2007. As per the above order, the court below granted maintenance @ Rs.750/- per month to respondents 1 and 2 and @ Rs.500/- to the third respondent and thus the petitioner herein was ordered to pay a total sum of Rs.2,000/- as maintenance to the claimants. As there was no payment the claimants moved the Family Court by filing CMP 5/2009 for execution of the order in the maintenance case. Consequently warrant was issued against the revision petitioner and thus he approached the Family Court by filing a Crl.M.P.460/09 to 2 withdraw the warrant, in the execution petition filed by the respondent. 3. Admittedly the petitioner has made certain payment out of the total arrears due to the respondents. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the contesting respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petition can be closed by permitting the revision petitioner to pay the whole balance amount in equal monthly installments @ Rs.5,000/-. The counsel for the respondent is also agreeable to the said suggestion and prayer. In the impugned order the Family Court has already observed that certain amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. Apart from that when this revision petition was admitted the petitioner was directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.10,000/- out of the arrears and also directed to deposit Rs.1,800/- per month towards the future maintenance. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above and in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, I am of the view that this revision petition can be disposed of. Accordingly, this 3 revision petition is disposed of on the following terms. a. The petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance in equal monthly installments @ 5,000/- per month, starting from the 1st of March, 2010. b. While calculating the arrears the amount already paid by him in the Family Court and also the deposit made by him as per the order of this court dated 12.1.2010 in Crl.M.A.337/2010 shall be adjusted. c. The respondents are free to withdraw the amount which will be deposited by the petitioner as directed above. d. The petitioner is directed to continue to deposit the maintenance amount ordered by the trial court towards the future maintenance. e. The respondents are also free to withdraw such amount. f. It is left open to the parties to resort permissible statutory procedure, if any grievance still remain to be redressed. With the above directions this revision petition is disposed of. V.K.Mohanan, Judge cms