Valiya Parambil Kunhali vs Muhammed Shahil

K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 proceedings, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Briefly put the case of the Petitioner is as follows:

Petitioner is the Respondent in M.C.104/2010 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram, filed by the minor. The Petitioner was abroad and he could not proceed with the matter and therefore, an order was passed without hearing the Petitioner and directing him to pay maintenance to the Petitioner in the M.C. The Petitioner filed an application to set aside the order, along with an application to condone the delay. The Family Court found that there was no reason to condone the delay as stated and there is no bonafides. But, considering the need for a contested disposal, the Family Court granted one more opportunity, provided he deposits the entire arrears of maintenance without fail, on or before 12 noon of 10.3.2011. The order was passed on 28.2.2011.

When this case came up for admission, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner will deposit the entire amount within one week from 26.5.2011.

Today, we heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the entire amount has been directed to be deposited, we dispose of the matter as follows:

The application filed by the Petitioner will stand allowed. We extend the time till the time which we have extended as per order dated 26.5.2011. That is to say, if the Petitioner has made the deposit of the amount within the time which we have given, the ex parte decree will stand set aside and the Family Court will take up the M.C. and proceed with the same, with opportunity to the parties and dispose of the case within two months. We also permit the Respondent to withdraw the entire amount deposited and this will be subject to the final result of the M.C.

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.