IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11248 of 2006(L)
1. B.ABDULL AZEEZ, S/O.YOUSUF,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAJIDA, D/O..SAINUDEEN, AGED 32 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. SHABIN, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :05/10/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.C.NO.11248 OF 2006
---------------------------------------------
Dated 5th October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, the husband of first
respondent filed Ext.P2 petition
(Crl.M.P.1465/2006), to set aside the ex-
parte order dated 30/4/2005 granting
maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per
month to second respondent, minor son of
the first respondent. By Ext.P3 order dated
10/3/2006, Family Court dismissed the
petition as there was no representation and
petitioner was absent. Consequently, by
Ext.P4 order, Family Court allowed the
application filed by the first respondent
to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,000/- in
deposit. This petition is filed under
Article 226 of Constitution of India to
Wpc 11248/06
2
quash Exts.P3 and P4 orders. When writ petition
was admitted on 19/4/2006, order issuing non
bailable warrant was stayed on condition of
deposit of Rs.15,000/-.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner was heard.
3. When the ex-parte order was passed
directing petitioner to pay maintenance, he
filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte
order. As there was no representation for the
petitioner and his counsel was also absent,
Family Court was justified in dismissing Ext.P2
petition by Ext.P3 order. If there is
sufficient reason for the absence of the
petitioner on 10/3/2006, when the petition was
dismissed, it is upto the petitioner to
approach the concerned Family Court and seek
an order to restore Crl.M.P.1465/2006. I find
Wpc 11248/06
3
no reason to quash Exts.P3 or P4 orders.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.