ABDUL RAFEEK Vs. NISHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act and under Ss. 397 and 401 of the the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging Order dtd. 27/1/2020 in M.C.No.190/2019 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents in detail.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that even though the revision petitioner is a person who has been working as UPSA, he suffered mental distress during the period 2019-2020 and therefore, he could not vigilantly prosecute the matter. Accordingly, the Family Court passed an ex parte order, whereby the revision petitioner/respondent was directed to pay maintenance to the first respondent herein, who is the first petitioner-wife in the MC, at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per month and the second respondent-minor child, at the rate of Rs.7,000.00 per month from the date of petition. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as of now, as per Annexure A5 salary certificate also, the total salary drawn by the revision petitioner is Rs.47,403.00 and the net salary is only Rs.18,787.00. Therefore, Rs.17,000.00 (Rs.10,000.00 + 7,000) granted as maintenance by the trial court is on higher side and the revision petitioner wants to adduce evidence in the matter of quantum of maintenance and for which an opportunity may be given to the revision petitioner.