Ramachandran Nair, J.
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Family court, Ernakulam in M.P.No.518/2012 in M.C.No.41/2012 of the Family Court, Ernakulam.
2. By the order dated 3.07.2012, the Family Court directed interim maintenance to be paid to the wife and two children @ `1000/- and ` 750/- each.
3. The present order is passed in the review petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that actually when the order dated 3.7.2012 was passed, the counsel could not be personally present, but the Court directly put certain questions to the petitioner. In the light of the impression gained by the Court by the answers given by the petitioner, the order happened to be passed. At that stage, he did not obtain the copy of the petition and get an opportunity to file counter also. It is mainly contended that the wife is leading a adulterous life.
4. We find from the impugned order that the learned Judge who passed the order on 3.7.2012 heard the review petition also. It is recorded that the Court had personally heard the petitioner and informed him that the petition is for interim maintenance filed by wife and what is his opinion on the capacity to raise funds. The petitioner had replied that he is a lorry driver and is ready to give a total sum of `1,500/- to the two minor children and he will not pay any maintenance to his wife. After finding that the wife is not having any job, the learned Judge has passed the impugned order finding that there is no good ground to review the order. We find that there is no apparent error committed by the court in the order under challenge. We have perused the order dated 3.7.2012 which shows that the petitioner herein was personally present and after putting the matter to him alone, the court has passed the order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as the children are concerned, the petitioner is regularly paying the amount. It is also stated that the main petition is posted for evidence now.
In that view of the matter, we are not interfering with the order impugned. If the petitioner has got a case that the wife is well settled, the petitioner will be free to adduce evidence in the matter before the Family Court. We dismiss the O.P. without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to contest the matter on merits. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE P.V.ASHA, JUDGE sv.