IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 194 of 2009() ---------------------- CMP.715/2007 IN MC NO.196/2005 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ ABDUL KHADER.P.V.,S/O..BABOOTY, AGED 48 YEARS,PONAMBALATH HOUSE, KOTTAYATHANGADI,KOTTAYAM (MALABAR) P.O., KUTHUPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- MARIYAM.T.M.,AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.MOIDU,MOYYALAKATH HOUSE, NEAR O.K.U.P.SCHOOL P.O., EDAKKAD,KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.194 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009. ORDER On an application preferred by the respondent, learned Judge of the Family Court, Kannur directed petitioner, husband to pay maintenance to respondent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.715 of 2007 to set aside that order, according to him passed exparte. When C.M.P.No.715 of 2007 was taken up for hearing on 24.1.2009 petitioner was absent and no evidence was adduced. That petition was dismissed. Hence this revision. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that absence of petitioner in the court on 24.1.2009 was not willful. 3. While requesting the court to reopen the case it is relevant to consider the contention which the petitioner is intending to urge before the court. That would give an indication whether the prayer to set aside the order is bonafide or the attempt is only to protract the litigation and harass the respondent. In this case, respondent claimed maintenance from petitioner alleging that he subjected her to inhuman treatment and neglected and refused to maintain her. Respondent stated that petitioner is engaged in business of timber, has landed properties and earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Petitioner filed objection to the petition but later did not turn out. The Family RP(FC) No.194/2009 2 court after recording evidence of respondent as per order dated 21.3.2006 directed petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. Learned counsel submits that respondent has not challenged the quantum of maintenance awarded to her. It is in 2007 that petitioner has filed C.M.P.No.715 of 2007 to set aside the order dated 21.3.2006. On that petition, petitioner did not adduce any evidence nor did he appear in the court below on the relevant day. It is accordingly that C.M.P.No.715 of 2007 was dismissed. Though in the M.C. proceeding it is contended that petitioner is sick and could not earn, he did not attempt to substantiate that contention. I am not satisfied that petitioner should be given another opportunity to reopen the proceeding as per which maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- was awarded to the respondent. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the court below. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks