A party must be afforded an opportunity to contest a maintenance claim to ensure fairness in judicial proceedings.

O R D E R

The Revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.205/2012 of the family court, Kottayam. The above M.C was filed by the respondents herein u/s 125(1) of Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance allowance from the Revision petitioner. The 1st respondent is the divorced widow and respondents 2 and 3 are minor children of the Revision petitioner. The 1st respondent claimed Rs.4,000/- per month and respondents 2 and 3 claimed Rs.3,000/- each as monthly allowance. After trial, the family court directed the Revision petitioner to pay monthly allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,500/- each to respondents 2 and 3. This order is under challenge in this Revision petition.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner submits that the impugned order was an exparty order. So the Revision petitioner could not contest the matter on merits by adducing sufficient evidence. The Revision petitioner did not file any objection on the belief that the matter will be settled by Mediation and the Mediation was going on. While so, he was in search of a job and he met with an accident. Thereafter he was bed ridden for a long period. Therefore, he was unable to appear before the court and contest the case properly.

3. Going by the judgment, it is seen that the Revision petitioner was set exparty. I do not embark upon an enquiry on the genuineness of the reason for which he was set exparty. Here, I am taking a lenient view on a different perspective. Adjudication of a lis on merits after affording sufficient opportunities of being heard to both parties is more desirable than deciding the issue on the basis of the evidence adduced by one of the parties. At the same time the opposite party shall not be allowed suffer difficulties, owing to the latches of the Revision petitioner. Therefore, the Revision petitioner is given an opportunity to contest the matter and adduce evidence on certain conditions. Consequently, the impugned order will stand set aside on copliance of the conditions given below and the matter is remitted to family court, Ettumanoor, for fresh consideration. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence, if any. Therefore, this Revision petition will stand allowed on compliance of the following conditions:

i) The Revision petitioner shall deposit entire arrears due to the respondents under the impugned judgment within a period of one month.

ii) The Revision petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the respondents as cost within a period of three weeks.

iii) The parties shall appear before the family court on 15th June, 2013.

The family court is directed to restore the complaint on the files, on compliance of the above conditions and proceed in accordance with law, failing which impugned judgment will stand in force and the family court will be at liberty to enforce the same.

This revision petition is allowed accordingly.

K.HARILAL, JUDGE.

stu