IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 32 of 2004(B) ---------------------- M.C.NO.173/1997 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. .................... : PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O. THEKKE PALAZHI BHAVANI AMMA, NADAVARAMBA DESOM, VETOOKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------ SHOBHIKA, D/O. THAIVALAPPIL PREMA, "PARVATHISADANAM", THRIPPAKULAM, MATHILAKOM P.O., THRISSUR DIST., STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R1 SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB FOR R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.32 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an ex parte order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensum to the claimant, his wife. The petitioner had entered appearance; but had not filed a counter statement. Ex parte evidence of the claimant was recorded. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order may be set aside. What is the reason? The petitioner, who has the right to get the ex parte order set aside under Section 126 Cr.P.C has not chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of the Family Court to set aside the ex parte order. Instead, he has chosen to file this revision petition to challenge the impugned order on merits. On merits, I find absolutely nothing to sustain the challenge against the impugned order. No counter statement has been filed against the evidence of the claimant regarding marriage, separate residence and the employment of the petitioner in the gulf countries. The quantum of maintenance awarded is only Rs.500/- per mensum. I am R.P.F.C.No.32/08 2 satisfied that there is absolutely no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction against the impugned order. 3. This revision petitioner is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.32/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.32/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No.32 of 2004 ORDER 30/05/2008