IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 156 of 2009()
1. M.IBRAHIM, S/O.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAMEENA @ SHAMEENA,
... Respondent
2. SAJINA, D/O.SAMEENA @ SHAMEENA,
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C
For Respondent :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :25/11/2009
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN J.
-----------------------------
R.P(FC) No. 156 of 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.796 of 2006 on
the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The respondents herein who are
the wife and daughter of the revision petitioner, preferred the above
petition seeking an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner filed his counter and the
case was posted for enquiry on 16.12.2008 at its Alathoor Camp. The
revision petitioner sought time. But the learned Judge was not inclined to
grant the request. The revision petitioner was set exparte and after
taking evidence the petition was allowed on the same day. Thereby the
revision petitioner was ordered to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of
Rs.1,500/- to the first respondent and at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the
second respondent. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of
the above order, this revision petition was filed.
2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
he has raised serious contentions including denial of paternity of the
second respondent. Since the counsel for the revision petitioner was
engaged in Palakkad, he could not attend the camp sitting at Alathoor
and that though the junior sought for time to pass it over till afternoon, it
R.P(FC) No. 156 of 2009 2
was declined and as a result, justice was denied to him. I find little merit
in the contention. The camp sitting was arranged at outstation only to
suit the convenience of the parties. Then, it is not at all justified for the
counsel to seek for an adjournment. I find that the lower court had
correctly declined the request for adjournment and right in proceeding
exparte. However, I find that it would be appropriate to grant an
opportunity to the revision petitioner to agitate his contentions on
conditions.
In the result this revision petition is allowed on condition that the
revision petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- on or before
1.1.2010 towards the maintenance failing which the revision petition
would stand dismissed. On deposit, the respondents are at liberty to
withdraw the same. The trial court shall dispose the petition on merits as
per law. In the event the revision petitioner succeeds before the trial
court and the petition is dismissed, the respondents are entitled to
adjust the deposited amount towards their cost. In the event revision
petitioner fails, the said amount shall be credited to the maintenance
due.
Sd/-
P.S.GOPINATHAN
JUDGE
//True Copy//
ab PA to Judge