ROJO THOMAS Vs. MINNU THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the final order passed by Family Court, Pathanamthitta (for short 'the court below') on 29/10/2018 in M.C.No.238/2017. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the M.C. The Family Court has allowed the M.C and directed the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.7,000.00 per month from the date of the petition and also permitted her to realise the cost from the revision petitioner. The said order is assailed in the revision on hand.

(2.) Parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent in accordance with their status in the M.C.

(3.) The contention of Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel was that the respondent was at gulf at the relevant time when the M.C was considered by the court below and was represented by his Power of Attorney Holder. According to him the court below had posted the case successively within a gap of 10-15 days for adducing evidence from his side. According to him, the respondent had filed counter statement in the M.C. But since he was at gulf, could not attend the court below and adduce evidence based on the contentions raised in the objection. Therefore the court below has passed the impugned order ignoring the contentions.