High Court Kerala High Court

Jamaludheen vs Raseena on 1 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Jamaludheen vs Raseena on 1 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 300 of 2009()


1. JAMALUDHEEN, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RASEENA, D/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. LULU LISAN-MINOR REPRESENTED BY

3. LULU LIYANA-MINOR-REPRESENTED BY

4. LAHAN LAZIN, MINOR-REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :01/12/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
            ======================
                R.P.(F.C). No.300 of 2009
            ======================
       Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009.

                       JUDGMENT

The respondents herein, who are the wife and children

of the revision petitioner, obtained an exparte order of

maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure from the Family Court, Malappuram in

M.C.No.364/07. Seeking an order to set aside the exparte

order he preferred C.M.P. No. 609/08. That was

dismissed for default. To restore that petition, C.M.P.No.

1441/08 was filed. That petition was also dismissed for

default. The revision petitioner, thereupon filed

C.M.P.No.145/09 seeking an order to restore C.M.P.No.

1441/08. In that proceedings also, the revision petition

remained absent. Consequently, by order dated 19.5.09,

that petition was also dismissed. Assailing the legality,

correctness and propriety of that order, this revision

petition was filed. Having heard either side, I find little

merit in the revision petition. I find serious laches and

R.P(F.C). No.300 of 2009 2

negligence on the side of revision petitioner. The revision

had adopted an indifferent attitude, which can not be

encouraged any way. However, I find that, being a

matrimonial dispute, it would be appropriate to provide

one more opportunity to the revision petitioner to seek an

order on merits on conditions.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order

impugned would stand set aside and C.M.P. 145/09 would

stand restored to file on condition that revision petitioner

shall deposit Rs.25,000/- towards maintenance arrears,

failing which this revision petition shall stand dismissed.

On deposit, the trial court shall dispose that petition on

merits. The respondents are at liberty to withdraw the

same.

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.

mns

R.P(F.C). No.300 of 2009 3