The revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by the ex- parte maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Kottarakkara in M.C.No.170/2011. The respondents herein brought the said proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance at the rate of ₹3,000/- each per month. The 1st respondent herein claims to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein, and her case is that the marriage was solemnized on 2.12.2001. The 2nd respondent herein is said to be her son born in the said wedlock.
2. The revision petitioner received notice from the trial court in M.C No.170/2011, but he remained absent throughout. In such a circumstance he was set ex-parte, and the trial court directed him to pay maintenance to the respondents herein at the rate of ₹3,000/- each per month by order dated 13.3.2013. The said ex-parte order is under challenge in this revision.
3. The respondents entered appearance in this proceedings and resisted the revision. I heard the learned counsel on both sides in the matter. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records I find that an opportunity must be given to the revision petitioner to contest the matter. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent herein is not in fact the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner, but the paternity, it appears, is practically admitted. A reading of the impugned order will show that there is some doubt regarding the alleged legal marriage set up by the 1st respondent. It was submitted by the counsel that there is only an agreement between the parties, and that a legal marriage was not solemnized. The said agreement is produced in Court by the 1st respondent as Annexure A1. Any way I find that there is a serious dispute regarding legality of marriage. In such a circumstance it would be only just and appropriate to allow him to contest the matter, and let their be a decision on merits after hearing both sides. However, a condition will have to be imposed for allowing this revision that the revision petitioner will have to pay interim maintenance to the 2nd respondent (child) at a reasonable rate. I feel that ₹2,000/- per month will be the proper and reasonable amount as interim maintenance to the 2nd respondent, who is now aged 10 years. I find that there is a serious dispute to be resolved, for which the trial court will have to record evidence in detail on both sides.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed on condition that the revision petitioner shall pay interim maintenance to the 2nd respondent herein (2nd petitioner in the maintenance proceedings) at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month, from the date of filing of M.C.No.170/2011, till decision is taken in the main proceedings by the trial court. Accordingly, the ex- parte order in M.C.No.170/2011 passed by the trial court is set aside, and the case is remanded to trial court for decision after affording reasonable opportunity to the revision petitioner to file objections and after recording evidence on both sides. The interim order of maintenance in favour of the 2nd respondent can well be enforced by the 1st respondent herein in the trial court, and the trial court is hereby directed to see that the interim maintenance awarded by this Court is promptly and regularly paid by the revision petitioner. The parties will appear before the trial court on 30.6.2014. The trial court will expedite trial of the case and dispose of the matter as early as possible. The amount of interim maintenance due till this date shall be deposited by the revision petitioner in the trial court, within two months, for payment through the 1st respondent.
Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab