IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 228 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.34/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA. .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN MC. ---------------------------------------------- RADHAMANI, AGED 40, W/O.GOVINDAN, MALEPURATH HOUSE, ODAPPALLAM, VALLUVADY P.O., KUPPADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT AMBADI, KAROLLIN ROAD, PONNURUNNI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.HARISH R. MENON, MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN MC. --------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOVINDAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MALEPURATH HOUSE, AGED 53, ODAPPALLAM, VALLUVADY P.O., KUPPADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY. 2. ANIL, S/O.GOVINDAN, MALEPPURATH HOUSE, AGED 21, ODAPPALLAM, VALLUVADY P.O., KUPPADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY. 3. SUNIL,S/O.GOVINDAN, MALEPPURATH HOUSE, AGED 19, ODAPPALLAM, VALLUVADY P.O., KUPPADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.MATHEW KURIAKOSE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.228 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kalpetta in M.C.No.34/2007. The petitioner moved an application for maintenance against the husband and children at the rate of Rs.2,000/= from the husband and Rs.1,500/= each from the children. The allegation is that the husband and children had totally neglected to maintain her and she is residing in a home for which she requires an expense of Rs.5,000/= and therefore prays for the same. 2. On the contra, the husband and children would contend that she is living of her own accord and she is not liable to be maintained and large amount had been spent for the treatment of her. 3. I do not know why the family court has adopted a very short cut method. It just dismissed the application stating that an application had been filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Rs.1,000/= has been ordered by the CJM to be paid and the : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.228 OF 2008 petition is not for enhancement of that amount. I have read the evidence of PW1. It is not having any clarity. What is recorded is “ Whether it is an order or what is the mode etc are not seen from the order. It has also to be stated that there is no bar for claiming maintenance just because maintenance is ordered under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Rules. It is clear that any relief available under Sections 18,19,20,21 and 22 also to be sought in any legal proceedings before a civil court, family court or a criminal court affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceedings are initiated before or after the commencement of the Act. In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, he shall bound to inform the Magistrate about the grant of such relief. So, it has to be stated that there are no materials or order before the court to show that CJM has ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/=. The opposite party also no : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.228 OF 2008 where in the counter statement has got such a case. The opposite party even pretends ignorance about any proceedings before the CJM is seen averred in para-4 of the counter statement. Under such circumstances, it may not be correct on the part of the court to throw out an application presuming so many things. 4. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the family court for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the family court on 4.3.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.228 OF 2008