Kerala High Court
Sareepth vs Raveendran on 24 February, 2022
OP(CRL.) NO. 618 OF 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
OP(CRL.) NO. 618 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.M.P NO.655/2017 AND CMP NO.656/2017 IN
MC 370/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SAREEPTH, S/O. RAVEENDRAN,
VENGILASSERI VEEDU, OTHALOOR AMSOM DESOM,
PONNANI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)
SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
RAVEENDRAN, S/O. SANKUNNI,
PAVATTIPURATH VEEDU, OTHALOOR AMSOM DESOM,
OTHALOOR WEST P.O, PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679591.
BY ADVS.
SMT.D.N.NISHANI
SRI.M.SURESH KUMAR
SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
SRI.V.SREEJITH K13982000
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(CRL.) NO. 618 OF 2017 2
JUDGMENT
Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the Family Court, Tirur are
under challenge in this Original Petition.
2. The petitioner herein is the son of the respondent. The
respondent filed M.C.No.370/2015 at the Family Court, claiming
maintenance. The Family Court allowed the M.C ex-parte and
directed the petitioner herein to pay the monthly maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- with effect from 15.9.2015. Thereafter, after a lapse of
more than one year, the petitioner herein filed a petition to set
aside the ex-parte order as C.M.P No.656/2017 with a petition to
condone the delay of 389 days in filing the petition to set aside
the ex-parte order as CM.P.No.655/2017. Both those petitions
were dismissed by the Family Court as per Exts.P4 and P5 orders.
The said orders are under challenge in this Original Petition.
3. I have heard both sides.
4. The petitioner is none other than the son of the
respondent. The respondent is now aged 65 years. He has no
employment or no source of income. The petitioner being the son,
is legally and morally bound to maintain the respondent.
However, the order passed is ex-parte one. Hence, I am of the
view that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to
contest the case on merits. But, the petitioner must pay a
reasonable sum towards maintenance. As stated already, the order
was passed on 8.5.2016. The maintenance was ordered from the
date of petition ie., on 15.9.2015. The total arrears as on today
would come to Rs.3,75,000/-. I am of the view that the petitions
filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order and to
condone the delay can be allowed on condition that the petitioner
deposits a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- at the Family Court within a
period of one month.
In the result, this Original Petition (Crl.) is allowed. Exts.P4
and P5 orders are set aside. C.M.P No.665/2017 and C.M.P
No.656/2017 stand allowed on condition that the petitioner
deposits a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards maintenance within a
period of one month at the Family Court. On such deposit, the
respondent is permitted to withdraw the said amount. If no
deposit is made as directed in this judgment, Exts.P4 and P5
orders shall stand revived.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ab
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C No.370/2015
EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.MP NO.655/2017 IN M.C NO.370/2016
EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.656/2017 IN M.C NO.370/2016
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
