Krishnasre vs Rohit Thilak on 20 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 376 of 2009()


1. KRISHNASRE D/O.USHADEVI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ROHIT THILAK,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :20/01/2010

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                 ...........................................
                 R.P.(F.C).No.376 OF 2009
                                     &
                 R.P.(F.C).No.411 OF 2009
                 .............................................
          Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010.

                               O R D E R

R.P.(F.C).No.376 OF 2009 is filed by the wife against

the order of maintenance claiming enhancement and R.P.

(F.C).No.411 OF 2009 is filed by the husband against the

order of maintenance with a prayer to set aside the order

on the ground that the wife does not have any right to get

maintenance. The court below after consideration of the

materials had ordered a sum of Rs.1,000/= to be paid as

maintenance from 28..3.2008. It is against that decision

both these revisions are preferred.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in

R.P.(F.C).No.411 OF 2009 would submit before me that

while the case was being proceeded with, the lawyer was

absent on a particular day and when adjournment was

sought for, it was not granted and therefore, the party

himself cross examined and on account of his inexperience,

he was not in a position to do things properly and even did

: 2 :
R.P.(F.C).No.376 OF 2009
&
R.P.(F.C).No.411 OF 2009

not mark the documents which was really necessary to be

looked into the case.

I find that the document alleged to be executed by the

parties is produced before the family court which requires

consideration to decide the case. I do not want to elaborate

further on the ground that it will prejudice one of the

parties. Since I am inclined to grant an opportunity, I also

impose a condition for getting that benefit by directing the

revision petitioner in R.P.(F.C).No.411 OF 2009 to pay a sum

of Rs.15,750/= to the wife on or before 25.2.2010 and

continue to pay at the rate of Rs.750/= per month till a

final decision is taken in the matter. If the amount is paid on

or before that date, the parties be permitted to produce

further evidence and documents in support of their respective

contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance

with law. If the amount is not paid on or before 25..2.2010,

the benefit granted is withdrawn and the revision filed by

the husband will stand dismissed and the claim petition

for enhanced maintenance shall be tried by the family

: 3 :
R.P.(F.C).No.376 OF 2009
&
R.P.(F.C).No.411 OF 2009

court on that regard. Parties are directed to appear before

the family court on 25.2.2010. It is also made clear that if

any amount is already paid, that shall be adjusted towards

Rs.15,750/= and the balance need alone be paid.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

cl