IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2954 of 2010() ------------------------------ MC.4/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVN.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- SAKKEER HUSSAIN, AGED 50 YEARS, VALIYAKATH PERUMVEETTIL HOUSE, KANNOTH, VENKITANGU DESOM, CHAVAKKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. FARSANA, D/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, NEAR MAR THEMATHEUS SCHOOL, P.O.KURIACHIRA, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680006. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR R1 R2 BY P.P. SMT. P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2954 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 19 day of October , 2010 ORDER Husband is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur in M.C.No.4/2007 which is an ex parte order, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the order impugned was passed behind his back since there was no proper service of notice on him. It is the further submission that the amount was fixed in the impugned order purely based upon the sole evidence of the claimant who had suppressed several material facts before the court below and according to the learned counsel, had the revision petitioner been given proper opportunity, the said mistake would not have happened . 3. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that similar matter, which was pending before the Family court in which the revision petitioner is a party, was settled and CRL.R.P. 2954/10 2 it cannot be said that he was not aware of the proceedings pending before the court below, especially when the address shown in Annexure 3 as well as the impugned order are one and the same. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the first respondent. It is a fact that the order impugned is an ex parte order and the amount under various heads were arrived on the basis of the sole evidence of the first respondent-wife. From the impugned order itself, it is clear that the revision petitioner is directed to pay a total sum of Rs.13,77,000/-. Since a substantial amount is involved, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to give an effective opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter and to have a decision on merit. 5. At the very same time, it is also relevant to note that there is no dispute that the claimant before the court below is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. It is also discernible from the cause title that the claimant - the wife, approached the trial court during the year 2007 and, now, CRL.R.P. 2954/10 3 more than three years are over and no amount is seen paid to her, either maintenance during the iddat period or towards the maintenance. Therefore, I am of the view that while granting an opportunity to the revision petitioner to contest the matter, he can be directed to deposit a reasonable amount to be paid to the first respondent - claimant and such payment can be taken into consideration at the time of final disposal of the matter pending before the trial court. In the result, this Crl.R.P is disposed of setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal after giving sufficient opportunity to the revision petitioner as well as the first respondents/claimant, including for adducing evidence. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.One lakh only) in the court below, within one month from today and if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the revision petitioner has deposited the said amount, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of M.C. No.4/2007 and dispose of the same on merit within a CRL.R.P. 2954/10 4 reasonable time. 0n deposit of the above amount, the first respondent/wife is free to withdraw the same and the payment of the said amount can be taken into consideration at the time of final disposal of the matter. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month and if the revision petitioner deposits the amount within one month as directed above, further coercive proceedings based upon the order impugned shall be dropped. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 20.11.2010 on which date, the learned Magistrate is directed to take up the matter. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.R.P. 2954/10 5