Proper opportunity to contest maintenance claims must be ensured in family law proceedings.

R.P.(FC).No.46 of 2025 3 COMMON ORDER in Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2025 in R.P.(FC).No.46 of 2025 &

R.P.(FC).No.46 of 2025 Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2025 This revision has been filed challenging the order in M.C.No.64/2019 on the files of the Family Court, Kasaragod, whereby the learned Family Court Judge granted reliefs as under:

“In the result, MC is allowed as follows:-

1) Respondent is directed to pay ₹10,000/-, ₹7,000/-, ₹6,000/- and ₹4,000/- respectively as monthly maintenance allowance to petitioners 1 to 4 from 05/2019.

2) He shall deposit half of the arrears of maintenance allowance from 05/2019, till the date of this order, within six months from the date of this order.

3) PW1 is also entitled to receive ₹5,000/- as litigation expenses from respondent.

4) In case respondent fails to comply with the above conditions, PW1 is authorized to recover the amount, from the respondent and his assets, by due process of law.

&

R.P.(FC).No.46 of 2025 4

5) Respondent or any other persons acting under him are restrained by an order of prohibitory injunction from forcefully evicting the petitioners from House No.XXIX/377 situated at Kanhangad Village.

6) Respondent is also restrained by an order of prohibitory injunction from alienating the shared property, and also restrained him from causing any kind of nuisance to the peaceful residence of petitioner in the above house.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, even though the revision petitioner/respondent in M.C. appeared and followed the trial, he could not file a disclosure statement and counter affidavit, and also adduce evidence; and, according to him, the impugned order in M.C. was passed based on the evidence of PW1 alone. Therefore, the learned counsel pressed for an opportunity to the revision petitioner/respondent in M.C. to contest the matter on merits. The learned counsel also submitted that there was a delay of 1118 days in filing the revision, since the &

R.P.(FC).No.46 of 2025 5 revision petitioner was working abroad.

4. While considering the application for condonation of delay in challenging the order in R.P.(F.C.), the learned counsel for the revision petitioner agreed to deposit a sum of ₹5,00,000 towards arrears of maintenance. Today, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the said amount has been transferred to the wife of the revision petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for the wife/1^st respondent herein has also conceded the said transfer.

5. In fact, on going through the amounts awarded by the Family Court, the same would come to ₹27,000/- in total, and according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner has no sufficient income to pay such a higher amount as maintenance. Since arrears of maintenance to the tune of ₹5,00,000 have already been paid, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents also did not oppose the matter being adjudicated on merits, subject to appropriate orders regarding payment of maintenance during the interregnum.

&

R.P.(FC).No.46 of 2025 6

6. Having noticed all the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated for the delay, and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to condone the delay of 1118 days in filing the revision. Accordingly, Crl.M.A.No.2/2025 is allowed and the delay of 1118 days in filing the revision is hereby condoned.

7. Coming to the order in R.P.(F.C.), even though the revision petitioner appeared before the Family Court after receipt of notice of the proceedings, he failed to file a disclosure statement and counter affidavit and was also not inclined to contest the matter. Accordingly, acting on the evidence of PW1 alone, the impugned order of maintenance came to be passed.

8. O