IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 16 of 2011()
1. JIJO JOSEPH, S/O.P.J.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BINDU JOSEPH, D/O.V.M.JOSEPH,
... Respondent
2. ANU JOSEPH,
For Petitioner :SRI.ROY CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :24/01/2011
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------------
R.P.(F.C) No.16 OF 2011
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011.
O R D E R
The challenge in this revision petition is against the
order dated 19.04.2010 in M.C. No.533/2006 by which
the Family Court, Malappuram restored its earlier
order dated 30.05.2007 in M.C. No.533/2006 by with
the Family Court, directed the revision petitioner to pay
maintenance to the claimant that to the wife at the rate
of `.2,000/- and to the daughter at the rate of `.1,300/-
per month.
2. I have heard Shri.Roy Chacko, learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner. I have also
perused the order impugned and also the Annexure-A1,
judgment of this court.
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that, though this court by Annexure-A1 order
remanded the matter for fresh consideration, by
R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011
2
permitting the contesting parties to produce
documentary as well as oral evidence, how the Family
Court issued an order, restoring its earlier order,
though the same was set aside by this court in R.P.(F.C)
No.331/2007 as per Annexure – A1 order. Though this
court directed the Family Court to consider the matter
afreshly, the said Court has not complied with the
direction of this court and without granting opportunity
to the revision petitioner, the same has disposed of.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly
conceded that, there was default on the part of the
revision petitioner in appearing before the Family Court
on the date fixed by this court in the Anenxure – A1
order and the same was not willful but due to the
reasons beyond his control.
4. I have carefully consider the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the revision
R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011
3
petitioner and the order passed by this court by
Annexure-A1 judgment and also the order impugned in
this revision petition. Admittedly, vide Annexure-A1
order, after hearing the parties including the contesting
respondent this court has set aside the original order in
M.C. No.533/2006, after having satisfied that, it is just
and proper to grant opportunities to the parties
concerned to adduce documentary as well as oral
evidence. But the order now passed by the Family
Court shows that, the Family Court has simply restored
the earlier order and there is no reconsideration of the
issues on the basis of the evidence permitted to be
adduced by this court. From the order of the learned
Family Court, it can be seen that, though the petitioner
herein was directed to appear before the Family Court
on 19.04.2010, vide Annexure-A1 judgment, he failed to
appear in the court, though the proceedings has
R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011
4
postponed till 5 p.m on 19.04.2010. Learned counsel for
the revision petitioner submitted that there were no
willful latches or negligence on the part of the revision
petitioner but because of the reasons beyond his
control, the revision petitioner could not appear before
the family court.
5. However, by the above proceedings, it can be
seen that the petitioner was prosecuting his grievances
and this court after having satisfied that the original
order passed by the Family court is not sustainable, set
aside its earlier order and remanded the matter for
fresh consideration that to after permitting the parties
to adduce evidence. But the above direction of this
court is not seen materialized, probably due to the
absence of the revision petitioner. In the light of the
above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that
one more opportunity can be given to the revision
R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011
5
petitioner to have a disposal of the matter pending
before the Family Court, in terms of the direction
contained in Annexure-A1 order. But the same can be
done only on terms, especially in the light of the fact
that the impugned order is being set aside in the
admission stage of this revision petition, only for the
reason that if notices ordered on admitting this revision
petition, the claimants before the court below has to be
dragged into this court even in that case according to
me, without a remand, the matter cannot be disposed of
on merit.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of on
the following terms.
1. The order dated 19.04.2010 in M.C.No533/2006 of
the Family Court, Malappuram is set aside on
condition
(i) The petitioner pay a sum of `.2,500/-
R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011
6
(Rupees Two thousand five hundred only)
to the first claimant and `.1,500/-(Rupees
One thousand five hundred only) to the 2nd
claimant who are respondents 1 and 2
herein, as cost within one month from
today, the payment of this amounts shall be
made either directly to the claimants or
through their counsel, if any in the Family
Court and after making the payment on
either of the mode indicated above, the
petitioner shall file a memo before the
Family Court to that effect.
(ii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of
`.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) in
the Family Court, Malappuram within one
month from today and another `.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty thousand only) within one
R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011
7
month from the date of remittance of
`.50,000/- as directed above.
(iii) The petitioner shall continues to pay
the future maintenance at the rate of
`.1,200/- to the first claimant/mother and
`.1,300/- to the 2nd claimant/minor
daughter. The payment of which shall
commence by the 2nd week of February
2011.
(iv) The revision petitioner is directed to
appear before the Family Court,
Malppuram on 24.02.2011, on which date
the Family Court, Malappuram is directed
to restore M.C.No.533/2006, on satisfaction
that, the petitioner has complied with the
foregone directions.
2. After the appearance of the petitioner in
R.P.(F.C) No.16/2011
8
compliance of the above direction, the Family
Court, Malappuram is directed to issue notice to
the claimants therein and dispose of
M.C.No.533/2006 afreshly in terms of the direction
contained in Annexure – A1 order of this court. It
is made clear that, the Family Court, Malappuram
can take appropriate decision regarding the
amount of arrears to be deposited by the
petitioner, in terms of the outcome of the
proceedings pending before it, i.e,
M.C No.533/2006.
Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.K.MOHANAN),
Judge
SS/-
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge