O R D E R

This revision is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Malappuram in Crl.M.P. No.447 of 2015 in M.C. No.326 of 2011.

2. For the sake of clarity, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent and petitioners 1 and 2 in accordance with their status in the M.C. The above Crl.M.P. was filed by the petitioners who are his wife and minor child aged 11 years seeking to obtain interim monthly maintenance allowance. The claim of the 1st petitioner was not pressed at the time of hearing and accordingly it was dismissed. Interim maintenance allowance claimed at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for the 2nd petitioner was allowed and the respondent was directed to deposit the same on or before the 5th of every month, until further orders in favour of the power of attorney holder through whom the claim was made by the 1st petitioner, on production of the relevant receipts and vouchers issued from the school, whereto school fees and other miscellaneous expenses, if any, incurred in connection with the education of the child were paid. A further direction was also issued that, the monthly maintenance allowance stands in arrears shall be deposited before 15th of September, 2015. The said order is assailed in the appeal on hand.

3. Sri.Joby Jacob Pulickekudy submitted arguments on behalf of the respondent and Sri.K. Anand, on behalf of petitioners 1 and 2. It is urged by Sri.Joby Jacob Pulickekudy that the order under challenge is irregular, illegal, improper and unsustainable. According to him, petitioners 1 and 2 have filed the petition for obtaining interim maintenance allowance in the year 2015. In the year 2011, the 1st petitioner got remarried and left India. The marriage and the employment abroad were admitted by the 1st petitioner and admittedly money for maintenance of the minor child was sent by her every month. The 2nd petitioner is in the custody of the father of the 1st petitioner. Crl.M.P. No.447 of 2015 was filed by the father seeking for interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for the 2nd petitioner with ulterior motives and without authority. The power of attorney executed in favour of the father is also produced. The learned counsel submitted on the basis of the power of attorney that the authorisation given under the power of attorney to the holder of it is only to appear, for and on behalf of the 1st petitioner and not for the 2nd petitioner. According to him, the power of attorney executed by the 1st petitioner will not authorise the power of attorney holder to appear on behalf of the minor 2nd petitioner unless and until he is appointed as guardian by the court. It was also urged that the Family Court is highly justified in granting the interim monthly maintenance allowance as claimed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the Family Court has gone wrong in directing the release of the interim monthly maintenance allowance ordered in favour of the 2nd petitioner, to the power of attorney holder of the 1st petitioner. The Family Court ought to have seen that the power of attorney was neither executed by the 2nd petitioner authorising the father of the 1st petitioner to act for him nor executed by the 1st petitioner to act as next friend of the minor 2nd petitioner.

4. It is also contended that the 1st petitioner is admittedly remarried and employed abroad and therefore, she is able to maintain her own and also the minor child, who is staying with her. According to the learned counsel, the monthly maintenance allowance ordered at the rate of Rs.5,000/- is exorbitant and it having been fixed without any basis, deserves to be set aside. 5. A copy of the power of attorney was appended to the revision on hand as Annexure C. The powers conferred by the Power of Attorney are extracted hereunder :

“To appear, represent, prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings before the CDRF Malappuram, Family Courts, JFCM Courts and al