2025:KER:28311 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 103 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2011 IN MC NO.449/2011 AND THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2013 IN CRL.MP NO.599 OF 2012 AND 601 OF 2012 IN MC NO.449 OF 2011 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: RAMANAN AGED 39 YEARS S/O KUNHIKANNAN, CHERUKOLIL HOUSE, POTTAMMAL MADU,KOLLAM CHINA, KADAPPADI, OLIKKARA, MALAPPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE SMT.CHITHRA R.SHENOY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 SOBHITHA AGED 33 YEARS D/O SIVADASAN, PUTHERI VALAPPIL, CHELARI, VELIMUKKU PO, TIRURANGADI TALUK. 2 ROSHNA AGED 14 YEARS 2025:KER:28311 RPFC NO.103 OF 2016 2 D/O SOBHITHA, PUTHERI VALAPPIL, CHELARI, VELIMUKKU PO, TIRURANGADI TALUK. 3 JASHNA AGED 12 YEARS D/O SOBHITHA, PUTHERI VALAPPIL, CHELARI, VELIMUKKU PO, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SOBHITHA(PARTY-IN-PERSON) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28311 RPFC NO.103 OF 2016 3 ORDER The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The respondents filed M. C. No.449/2011 against the petitioner before the Family Court, Malappuram claiming maintenance. The petitioner was set exparte. He filed Crl.M.P. No. 599/2012 and Crl.M.P. No.601/2012 in M.C. No.449/2011 to set aside the exparte order and also to condone the delay of thirteen months in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order. Those applications were allowed as per the order dated 04.02.2013 on condition that the petitioner shall deposit half of the amount claimed within three weeks. The petitioner failed to comply with the said order. Hence, M.C. was allowed exparte granting monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹5,000/- each to the 1st and 2nd respondents and ₹4,000/- to the 3rd respondent. This revision petition has been filed challenging the order in M. C. No.449/2011 dated 09.08.2011 and also the order in Crl.M.P. Nos.599/2012 and 2025:KER:28311 RPFC NO.103 OF 2016 4 601/2012 in M. C. No.449/2011 dated 04.02.2013. 2. Heard. 3. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. Absolutely no reason has been canvassed by the petitioner for his failure to comply with the condition in the order in Crl.M.P. Nos.599/2012 and 601/2012 dated 04.02.2013. The 1st respondent gave evidence as PW1. There is no contra evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner is working in Gulf country as a helper in a workshop from 2009 onwards. Thus, he has means to maintain the respondents. Considering the requirements of the respondents and the means of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be very reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR