Sudheer v. Shamla

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/12TH KARTHIKA, 1937 RPFC.No. 259 of 2012 () ------------------------ ORDER IN MC 292/2012 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

------------------------------- SUDHEER, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MARHUM HAMEED, RESIDING AT HAMEED MANZIL, KATTUPUTHUSSARI PALLICKAL VILLAGE CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:

------------------------- SHAMLA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. SHANIFA BEEVI RESIDING AT JASEEL MANZIL PALAVACODU NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT R. BY ADV. SRI.SHAMMI VIJAYAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SCL.

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.) No.259 of 2012 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2015

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.292 of 2012 on the files of the Family Court, Nedumangad, who in this revision petition challenges the order in M.C.No.292 of 2012 passed by the court below, which reads as follows:- "CMP allowed. Petitioner and counter petitioner represented Power of Attorney maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of this order.

For steps - 20..11..2012."

2.

Heard.

3.

A learned Single Judge of this Court called for the report from the Family Court concerned as to why the order did not mention as to whether it was an interim maintenance order or a final order. Even though the counter was filed by the revision petitioner, no mention about the counter was also made in the order impugned. The learned Judge of the family

R.P.(F.C.) No.259 of 2012 -2court filed a report stating that the order impugned is only an interim order for maintenance. Since the order impugned is only an interim order for maintenance, I am not inclined to interfere with the same.

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. However, the court below shall pass the final order in the matter, in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to substantiate their contentions, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six months from the date fixed for the appearance of the parties before the court below. The parties shall appear before the court below either personally or through the counsel on 1.12.2015. Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/04.11.2015 True Copy PA to Judge