PRAISEMON Vs. RINU JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforecaptioned revision petition filed under Sec.19(4) of the Family Court's Act, 1984 is directed against the impugned ex-parte final order dated 08.11.2017 rendered by the Family Court in M.C.No.48/2017. As per the proceedings of the said maintenance case, the Family Court has ordered that the revision petitioner herein/respondent therein shall pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent herein/petitioners therein. The claim amount in the said maintenance case was Rs.15,000/- per month and since the petitioner was set ex-parte, the Family Court has proceeded to allow the maintenance case, as prayed for by the petitioners therein.

(2.) Heard Sri.Jikku Seban George, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (husband) and Sri.Nandagopal S.Kurup, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (wife). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would urge that the impugned order has been rendered by the Family Court as an ex-parte one and that this Court may grant a reasonable opportunity to contest the matter on merits and that the matter may be remitted for consideration and decision afresh, after the petitioner gets an opportunity to file his pleadings in the maintenance case. Sri.Nandagopal S.Kurup, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein has seriously opposed the said plea and has pointed out that even after the rendering of the impugned ex-parte final order as early as on 18.11.2017, the petitioner never bothered even to challenge it by filing the revision petition before this Court without much delay and on the other hand, he waited till 16.07.2019 to file the present revision petition and that too with a long delay of 515 days and that this Court may seriously take note of the conduct of the parties and may dismiss the revision petition and may thus come from the impugned ex-parte decree. Further it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein that the respondent finds it extremely difficult to pull on with her life and it is only after this Court had passed a conditional interim order on 30.09.2019 in this case that the petitioner herein has paid some amount, etc.

(3.) This Court while admitting the above R.P(F.C) had passed a conditional interim order on 30.09.2019, which reads as follows: