IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 481 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.152/2005 OF OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- P.M.PHILIP, ALUMMOOTTIL PUTHENVEEDU, THEKKETHITTA, KUTTICHAL MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ----------------------------------- 1. SHEEBA KUNJAPPY, EDASSERIL PUTHEN BUNGLOW, THEKKE MANKUZHY, PULLIKKANAKKU P.O., KAYAMKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP,BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BENNY VARGHESE FOR R2 SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 481 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Alappuzha in M.C.152/05. The wife moved an application for maintenance against the husband as early as in 1996 and the Family Court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month but limited it at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from 5.11.96 to 24.9.2001 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.2,500/-. It is against that decision the husband has come up before this Court. 2. Heard the counsel for both the sides. The claim of the wife is that she is not being maintained properly and therefore she is entitled to maintenance. The husband has raised a statement in his counter statement that she had already married one George Thomas and that marriage was in subsistence at the time of the M.C. petitioner's marriage with the revision petitioner. So it is contended that it is a void marriage and therefore she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. R.P(F.C.) NO. 481 OF 2007 -:2:- 3. On the first round he lost the case and in revision before the learned Subordinate Judge, it was remanded with an opportunity to adduce evidence but again the same continued and the husband did not adduce any evidence. Therefore on the basis of exparte evidence the Family Court determined the case. When the contention is regarding the very validity of the marriage I do not want to deprive the party from contesting the case and such an opportunity can be given only on strong grounds for the reason that he is not properly prosecuting the matter. This Court by its interim order directed him to deposit Rs.65,000/- and then to pay at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. I make it clear that if he deposits a sum of Rs.1 lakh inclusive of this Rs.65,000/- and then he continues to pay at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month from June, 2009 onwards, the Family Court shall give him an opportunity to contest the case on merits. In the result the R.P.(F.C) is disposed of as follows: The order of the Family Court will stand set aside on condition that the revision petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1 R.P(F.C.) NO. 481 OF 2007 -:3:- lakh and continue to pay at the rate of Rs.1,500/- from 1.6.2009 onwards. If the amount ordered including the arrears that will be due after 1.6.2009 is deposited within a period of 2 months from today, i.e. on or before 8.6.2009 an opportunity be given to the revision petitioner to contest the case and let both the parties be permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 8.6.2010. If the amount ordered is not deposited no opportunity need be given and the Family Court's earlier order will stand confirmed. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge.