Abdul Salam vs Miharan Ussain
2024 Latest Caselaw 4823 Ker

Kerala High Court

Abdul Salam vs Miharan Ussain on 7 February, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945
                       RPFC NO. 54 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2024 IN CMP 386/2023 IN MC
               169/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

          ABDUL SALAM,
          AGED 55 YEARS,
          S/O. ABDU RAHIMAN, PUZHANGARA ILLATH VEEDU, 1ST MILE,
          P.O. CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679102
          BY ADVS.
          P.JAYARAM
          O.M.RAVI
          P.B.AJOY
          A.M.THOMAS (AYKAN)


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

          MIHARAN USSAIN, AGED 15 YEARS,
          REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, MAHARUBEN,
          AGED 45 YEARS, D/O MOHAMMED, PADINJARETHIL HOUSE,
          P.O. GANESHGIRI, SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679123


     THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RPFC NO. 54 OF 2024

                                            2


                                       ORDER

The husband, the father of minor child, came up

against the order passed by the Family Court by

allowing an application for setting aside the ex

parte order of maintenance conditionally by directing

a deposit of Rs.50,000/-, presumably on the reason

that the father kept away from court without

assigning any reason, secondly on the reason that

what is ordered by way of maintenance to the child

comes to only Rs.4000/- per month, the bare minimum

required for maintaining the minor child. This would

show the malafides behind the application. No one

shall be permitted to play any device before the

court, though there are provisions to set aside the

ex parte order. It shall not be permitted to be used

as a tool or weapon so as to delay and defeat the

right of maintenance. The court should be more

cautious and vigil in dealing with any such

application for setting aside the ex parte decree.

Unless there is sufficient reason, discretion can be RPFC NO. 54 OF 2024

exercised, but with required safeguard in terms of

money. The order passed hence reflects a proper

application. It deserves no interference.

The learned counsel for the petitioner requested

for the grant of a further time up to 29.02.2024 so

as to pay or deposit the cost amount. The petitioner

is at liberty to approach the trial court for getting

extension of time upto 29.02.2024 and in the event of

filing any such application, the trial court shall

consider the same and pass orders. With the

abovesaid observation, the present RPFC will stand

dismissed in limine.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp