Ramachandran Nair, J.,
In O.P.(F.C.) No. 207/2014, the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda.
2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides.
3. When the matter was heard last time, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been paying the amount towards maintenance and an affidavit has been filed today. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has serious objections regarding the averments made in the affidavit with regard to the alleged payments made.
4. It is a case where the petitioner is disputing the paternity of the child. I.A. No. 3808/2011 was filed for conducting DNA test to which the respondent filed a statement to the effect that she is agreeable for conducting the DNA test provided, the expenses for conducting the test will be met by the petitioner. After considering the said prayer, the Family Court passed Ext.P3 order, whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit the entire arrears in M.C as well as in O.P. 74/2012 for which time was granted up to 29.3.2014.
5. The challenge in O.P.(F.C) No. 453/2014 is the order dated 19.7.2014 in M.P. 327/14, wherein the petitioner sought for a stay of all further proceedings until O.P.73/2012 is disposed of. Therein also, the Family Court was of the view that, the petitioner has not complied with the directions of this Court in M.C. No. 14 of 2012.
6. Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the Family Court has made observations on the merits of the application filed for conducting the DNA test viz., paragraph 8 of the order Ext.P3 produced in O.P.(F.C.) No. 207/2014, we are of the view that, the Family Court has only postponed the consideration of the application subject to the fulfilment of the condition viz., depositing the arrears of maintenance. Even before this Court also, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, the respondent is prepared to undergo the DNA test provided, the petitioner will meet the expenses of the same.
7. Therefore, what is required to be assessed by this Court is as to whether the petitioner has deposited the entire arrears. In the affidavit filed along with I.A. 13763/2014, certain payments have been mentioned on different dates and the last payment is dated 15.3.2014. Since various payments have been disputed by the respondent, we will not be justified in pronouncing anything on the amount of arrears, if any, paid by the petitioner. We leave it to the parties to take the matter before the Family Court itself, since Ext.P3 order in O.P.(F.C). No. 207 of 2014 is by way of interim order in I.A. 3808/2011 and not one finally disposing the main matter. The petitioner is granted three weeks time to file affidavit showing the amounts if any, paid by him before the Family Court and the respondent can file objection to the statement filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, if there is any dispute regarding the amount paid, the Family court will have to pass appropriate orders and after settling the same, I.A. 3808/2011 will be taken up for further orders.
8. In O.P. 453/2013, the challenge is against Ext.P5 order.
Learned Counsel for the respondent at the out set submitted that O.P.(F.C.) 453/2014 itself is not maintainable. We need not go into the said contention, in the light of the fact that, we find no reason to interfere in the said order also. In the light of the directions we have already given in O.P.(F.C) No. 207/2014, and as the Family Court has only directed the petitioner to pay the arrears, according to us, the original petition was really unnecessary in the light of the whole background of the cases.
Therefore the O.P.(F.C) 207/2014 is disposed of with the above directions and O.P.(F.C.) 453/2014 is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) AL/-
True copy Sd/- P.V.ASHA (JUDGE) P.A to Judge