Kripanandan vs Rajani
2022 Latest Caselaw 2676 Ker

RPFC NO. 82 OF 2022
                               -1-

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
   FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                       RPFC NO. 82 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 368/2021 IN MC 154/2015 OF FAMILY
                        COURT, OTTAPPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

            KRIPANANDAN, AGED 47 YEARS
            S/O. LATE RAMAN PILLAI, THEYYATHU PARAMBIL VEEDU,
            P.O, KADAMBUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -
            679515.
            BY ADVS.
            P.JAYARAM
            GIGI PAPPACHAN
            K.R.PAUL
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/PETITIONERS:

    1       RAJANI, AGED 42 YEARS,W/O. KRIPANANDAN,
            THONIPPALLIYALIL VEETTIL, P.O, KALLUVAZHI, OTTAPALAM
            TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679514.
    2       ARCHANA, AGED 17 YEARS,D/O. KRIPANANDAN,
            THONIPPALLIYALIL VEETTIL, P.O, KALLUVAZHI, OTTAPALAM
            TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679514.(MINOR).
    3       AKSHAYA,AGED 14 YEARS,D/O. KRIPANANDAN,
            THONIPPALLIYALIL VEETTIL, P.O, KALLUVAZHI, OTTAPALAM
            TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679514.(MINOR).
            (MINOR REPRESENTS R2 AND R3 ARE REPRESENTED BY
            MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT)
     THIS    REV.PETITION(FAMILY   COURT)    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
      RPFC NO. 82 OF 2022
                                      -2-

                                JUDGMENT

This revision is filed challenging a common order passed by the

Family Court, Ottapalam on 19.09.2021, in I.A.Nos.1/2021 and 2/2021 in

O.P.No.558/2015 and C.M.P.No.368/2021 in M.C.No.154/2015. The

petitioner herein is the petitioner in the I.As and respondent in the M.C.

Original Petition No.558/2015 was filed seeking for return of gold

ornaments, money and past and future maintenance under Section 7(1)

(c)(f) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and M.C.No.154/2015 was filed

seeking for monthly maintenance allowance to the wife and children of

the revision petitioner, under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C.

2. A joint trial of these petitions were allowed and trial was

scheduled to be commenced on 15.11.2017. The revision petitioner did

not turn up on that day and therefore, ex parte common judgment in the

O.P and the M.C. was passed by the court. The revision petitioner was

directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance. The common order was

passed in the year 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed

I.A.Nos.1/2021 and 2/2021 in M.C.No.154/2015 and O.P No.558/2015

seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment and for condoning RPFC NO. 82 OF 2022

the delay of 1272 days occurred in filing the said application. The

reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay was that,

on 15.11.2017, he was away at Chennai in connection with his job. Due

to the restrictions imposed following outbreak of the pandemic, he was

unable to contact his counsel and to enquire about the status of the case.

Later, when he was informed about the factum, 1272 days were already

over and accordingly petitions were filed belatedly to set aside the ex

parte judgment and decree, after condoning the delay.

3. The court below allowed the application, but on a condition to

deposit 40% towards arrears of maintenance allowance.

4. The common order was passed in the M.C and the O.P in the

year 2017. Thereafter, the respondents have filed E.P.No.5/2018, for

enforcement of the ex parte order passed in the M.C. The court below

was constrained by the above circumstances to impose a condition on the

revision petitioner to deposit 40% of the arrears of maintenance

allowance. 40% of the amount would come to Rs.78,400/- (Rupees

Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred only). The application seeking to

set aside ex parte order being filed after more than four years and RPFC NO. 82 OF 2022

maintenance stands unpaid from 2015 onwards, the court below is

perfectly justified in imposing the condition. The amount being a

reasonable sum, this court is declined to interfere with the impugned

order and the R.P.(F.C.) is only to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for sometime for

paying the above amount. This court is inclined to grant one month's

time. The petitioner shall pay the amount in two equal installments,

within the time granted.

R.P.(F.C.) stands dismissed.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE uu