Aseem.K.P vs Mubashira.M

K.Babu, J

The challenge in this Revision Petition is to the order dated 08.07.2024 in CMP No.1 of 2024 in MC No.461 of 2023 of the Family Court, Kannur.

The revision petitioner is the respondent husband in M.C.No.461 of 2023. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, his wife and child, filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. When the revision petitioner failed to appear before the Court and contest the case, the Court set him ex parte and passed an order directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- to respondent No.2 with effect from 08.11.2023.

The revision petitioner filed an application to set aside the order under Section 126(2) Cr.PC. The Family Court allowed the application on condition that the revision petitioner pays Rs.52,000/- jointly to the respondents as maintenance on or before 01.08.2024.

I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner is not in a position to comply with the condition imposed by the Family Court.

The maintenance case was filed before the Family Court, Kannur. The revision petitioner received notice to appear. As the respondents were living at Taliparamba, the case was adjourned to the camp sitting at Taliparamba on 12.12.2023. On that day the revision petitioner did not appear. He was set ex parte and the case was decided against him. The revision petitioner was given enough time to defend the case.

The Family Court Judge recorded that there was no sufficient reason for setting aside the ex parte order. Still in the interest of justice, the Court afforded an opportunity to the revision petitioner to advance his defence and set aside the order, on condition that he shall pay maintenance awarded for a period of eight months. It is relevant to note that the learned Special Judge has taken a magnanimous approach in granting the relief sought for by the revision petitioner.. This is evident from the relevant portion of the impugned order which reads thus:-

“9. Thus, there are no reasons for setting aside a validly passed order. It appears that, the petitioner attempted to protract the litigation in order to avoid or postpone passing of an order against him. Actually the petition is liable to be dismissed because such contumacious and lethargic attitude cannot be encouraged by any Court of law, especially when the wife and a child age one year are waiting in queue for getting maintenance from the petitioner. No defence against the maintenance claim of wife and son was so far disclosed by the present petitioner.

Still, I am of the view that, in the interest of justice an opportunity can be given by the petitioner to advance his defence, if any, against the claim for maintenance raised by his wife and son…...”

Having considered the impugned order and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I am of the view that the impugned order warrants no interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. However, as a matter of indulgence, the revision petitioner is granted two months from this day to comply with the order dated 08.07.2024 in CMP No.1 of 2024 in MC No.461 of 2023 of the Family Court, Kannur.

The RPFC stands dismissed.