IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 43 of 2008()
1. ISMAIL, S/O.MOIDU @ UNNI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AMINAKUTTY, KAMPURATH HOUSE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP MOHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/02/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
R.P.F.(C).No.43 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against a common order
passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissing two
applications – one filed to set aside an exparte order and the other
filed to condone the delay of 819 days in filing the said petition.
2. The learned Judge indulgently directed that the delay
shall stand condoned and the order shall stand set aside on
condition that the petitioner deposits the entire amount of
maintenance which was directed to be paid. Time was granted till
23.01.08 to make the said payment. On 23.01.08, the amount
was not deposited and thereafter the learned Judge proceeded to
pass the impugned order dismissing both the applications.
3. The petitioner during the relevant period was
employed abroad. Marriage and paternity are not disputed. The
direction is to pay only an amount of Rs.1,250/- for the wife and
Rs.800/- for the child. No amount has been paid towards the
amounts due under the order so far.
4. The petitioner has come to this Court lamenting that
the condition imposed is perversely excessive and unduly harsh.
R.P.F.(C).No.43 of 2008 2
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in
detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants to rely on a
document in which he had allegedly paid an amount of
Rs.1,35,000/- to the claimant on 11.09.06. For the purpose of
arguments, I shall assume the same to be correct. It is very
evident that the said amount was paid for return of the property
which the petitioner retained as a trustee and which property
really belongs to the claimant/wife. The said argument cannot
hence be valuable to the petitioner.
6. I am satisfied that the impugned order passed by the
learned Judge of the Family Court is eminently correct and the
same does not warrant any interference at all.
7. Lastly and finally the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order was passed on 09.01.08. The petitioner
was directed to make the payment by 23.01.08. The petitioner
may be given some further time to make the payment, it is
prayed.
8. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am
satisfied that even without issuing notice to the
respondents/claimants, the said request can be accepted.
R.P.F.(C).No.43 of 2008 3
9. This revision petition is, in these circumstances,
allowed in part. The impugned order is upheld in all other
respects. But the petitioner is granted time till 15.03.08 to make
the payment of the amount as ordered on 09.01.08. If payment is
made by that date, it shall be reckoned by the learned Judge of
the Family Court as sufficient compliance of the order dated
09.01.08. The amount deposited shall straightaway be released
to the claimants.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-