High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-11-21Revision petition allowed; impugned order set a...

Renjith Mohan v. Anila and Arush

Case / Petition Number:RPFC NO. 384 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-11-21
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.11.2022 in MC 354/2021 is set aside, subject to: (a) the revision petitioner depositing Rs.75,000 on or before 21.12.2023 and a further Rs.75,000 on or before 21.01.2023 before the Family Court as interim maintenance; (b) if deposited, the amounts shall be released to the respondents in equal shares; (c) if not deposited, the Family Court shall proceed with Annexure A6 execution. The petitioner and respondents shall file affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities as per Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr. (2020 (6) KHC 1); (d) the petitioner shall file written objection to Annexure A1 within 30 days; (e) the Family Court shall dispose of the main application as expeditiously as possible; (f) payment of the ordered amount shall be subject to the final outcome of MC 354/2021.
Final Disposition: Revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside with conditions for interim maintenance, asset disclosure, and expeditious disposal of the main application; payment subject to final outcome of MC 354/2021; written objections to Annexure A1 to be filed within 30 days.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Renjith Mohan

Respondents

Anila
Arush

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.T. Suresh Kumar
• Manjusha K
• Sreelakshmi Sabu
• Reswin A. Khadir

Counsels for Respondents

• Mohan Lal B
• Aswin V. Nair
• Ajay S. Koshy
• P.S. Preetha
• Blessy Mary Sebastian
• Jayaprabha Arjun

Case Synopsis & Summary

This revision petition challenges a Family Court, Kollam order in MC 354/2021, which ex parte directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife Anila and their child Arush under the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. The respondents filed Annexure-A1 on 06.12.2021 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000 for the wife and Rs. 10,000 for the child. The petitioner contends that the Family Court’s impugned order was issued without proper service; the A1 diary shows that summons were sent and returned unclaimed, and the address used in Annexure A1 corresponded to Kollam, while the petitioner was employed in Idukki, creating a credible challenge to service. The court notes the existence of connected proceedings and suggests that service should have been effected on learned counsel in the connected matters or at the petitioner’s current address, rather than a deemed service. While recognizing the principle that merits should govern, the court emphasizes the need to avoid adjudicating defaults. It grants the petitioner another opportunity to contest, though it had arrived directly via a revision petition. The order ultimately allows for interim maintenance with conditions, including deposits and disclosure of assets, and directs expeditious disposal of the main application, subject to the final outcome of MC 354/2021 and compliance with due process.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125 Cr.P.C.Second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C.Third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C.Section 128 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

It is trite law that a case is to be decided on its merits, rather than on default.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner asserts that the impugned maintenance order was passed ex parte without proper service. He points to the A1 record showing the postal summons were unclaimed and contends the address used in Annexure A1 matched the petition’s title, but he was employed in Idukki, not Kollam, implying defective service. He argues there were connected matters and that service should have been effected on counsel or at his present address, and that merits must govern the dispute rather than defaults.

Contentions of Respondents

The document does not provide a detailed, quoted statement of the respondents’ arguments. It indicates respondents filed Annexure-A1 under Sec.125 CrPC seeking maintenance and that issues of service and interim maintenance were central to the revision judge’s analysis. The record shows the respondents’ counsel representing them and their claims for maintenance under Section 125.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.	2020 (6) KHC 1	Positive	Cited to justify affidavits of assets and liabilities and related procedural norms; used as a supportive authority rather than to distinguish or overrule.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Renjith Mohan v. Anila and Arush and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **RPFC NO. 384 OF 2023** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 354/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** RENJITH MOHAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O .JAYAKUMARI, MUNDAZHIKATHU VEED, NJARAKKAL CHERRY THRIKKADAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT KUNJARIKATHU VEED, PAALLIMUKKU CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, PARAVUR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691301 BY ADVS. M.T.SURESHKUMAR MANJUSHA K SREELAKSHMI SABU RESWIN A. KHADIR ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 ANILA, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. SREELATHA, AIKKARA KIZHAKKATHIL, MARUTHADI, KANNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN - 691581 2 ARUSH, S/O ANILA, AGED 1 YEAR, AIKKARA KIZHAKKATHIL, MARUTHADI, KANNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM,PIN - 691581(REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT) BY ADVS. Mohan Lal B ASWIN V. NAIR(K/1019/2017) AJAY S. KOSHY(K/003202/2022) P.S.PREETHA(K/883/1998) BLESSY MARY SEBASTIAN(K/003114/2023) JAYAPRABHA ARJUN(K/001757/2023) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC NO. 384 OF 2023 2 ## **ORDER** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Kollam in M.C.No.354/2021 setting the revision petitioner ex-parte and allowing the application by directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondents monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.8,000/- from the date of petition (06.12.2021). The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the Family Court. ## **Brief facts** 2. The respondents – wife and child of the revision petitioner - had filed Annexure-A1 application under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Code”) claiming monthly maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner @ Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/respectively. 3. The revision petitioner's case in the revision petition is that the Family Court has passed the RPFC NO. 384 OF 2023 3 impugned order without serving notice on him. Annexure-B Diary proceedings reveals that the Family Court has, after declaring deemed service of notice on the revision petitioner, set him ex-parte and passed the impugned order. Annexure-A3 certificate shows that the revision petitioner is working as a Civil Police Officer since 07.03.2020 in Idukki and not at Pallivasal. The respondents have deliberately shown the address of the revision petitioner at Kollam knowing fully well that he was employed in Idukki. Therefore, there was no proper service of notice in Annexure A-1 application. It is without noticing the above aspect the Family Court has passed the ex-parte impugned order. The impugned order suffers from illegality, impropriety and irregularity and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the revision petition. 4. Heard; Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.B.Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. RPFC NO. 384 OF 2023 4 5. Is there any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order ? 6. A perusal of the records reveals that the respondents had filed Annexure-A1 application under Section 125 of the Code on 06.12.2021. The address of the revision petitioner in the application is the same address as shown in the instant revision petition. The revision petitioner does not have a case that he is not a permanent resident of the address shown in the cause title of the revision petition and the cause title of Annexure A1 application. Nonetheless, the postal cover containing the summons Annexure A1 application was sent and got returned with an endorsement as “unclaimed”. It is based on the said endorsement, the Family Court declared deemed service of notice on the revision petitioner, set him ex-parte and then passed the impugned order. 7. It is conceded by both sides that there are connected cases between the parties pending before the Family Court. Therefore, the learned Judge of the Family RPFC NO. 384 OF 2023 5 Court ought to have directed the respondents to serve a copy of the application on the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in the connected matters or directed notice to be served in the present address of the revision petitioner. 8. It is trite law that a case is to be decided on its merits, rather than on default. 9. In the above conspectus, I am of the view that the revision petitioner has to be granted one more opportunity to contest the case on its merits. However, I find that the revision petitioner has directly approached this Court and filed a revision petition, without filing an application before the Family Court, to set aside the exparte order. 10. Thus, I am inclined to conditionally allow the revision petition by directing the revision petitioner to pay half the arrears of maintenance as per the impugned order to the respondents, which shall be treated as interim maintenance, which would do complete justice to both sides. RPFC NO. 384 OF 2023 6 11. I adopt the above course because under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125, an application for interim maintenance can be filed along with the main application and the same has to be disposed of within 60 days from the date of filing as per the mandate under the third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code. 12. In the case on hand, Annexure-A1 application was filed on 06.12.2021. The Family Court passed the impugned order on 16.11.2022 and the present revision petition is coming before me on 21.11.2023, that is approximately two years after the date of filing Annexure-A1 application. Even assuming that the revision petitioner had contested the case on merits, the respondents had a right to recover the interim maintenance from the revision petitioner, subject to the result of the main application. In the result: - (i) The revision petition is allowed. RPFC NO. 384 OF 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** - (ii) The impugned order dated 16.11.2022 in M.C.No.354/2021 is set aside, subject to the following conditions: - (a) The revision petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) on or before 21.12.2023 and a further amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) on or before 21.01.2023 before the Family Court as interim maintenance allowance. - (b) If the above amount is deposited, the same shall be released to the respondents in equal shares and in accordance with law. - (c) If the revision petitioner fails to deposit the ordered amount, the Family Court shall proceed with Annexure A6 execution application. - (iii) The revision petitioner and the respondents shall file affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities RPFC NO. 384 OF 2023 8 as laid down in **Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.** [2020 (6) KHC 1] - (iv) The revision petitioner shall file his written objection to Annexure-A1 application, if so advised within 30 days from today. - (v) As the application is of the year 2021, the Family Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the main application in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. - (vi) Needless to mention, the payment of above ordered amount shall be subject to the final outcome of M.C.No.354/2021. sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rkc/21.11.23 RPFC NO. 384 OF 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF RPFC 384/2023** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES |Annexure A1|TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN MC 354 OF| |---|---| ||2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ,KOLLAM| ||FILED UNDER SECTION 125(1)(A) AND (B) OF| ||CR.PC BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6-12-| ||2021| |Annexure A2|TRUE COPY OF THE 'B' DAIRY EVIDENCING THE| ||COURT PROCEEDINGS FROM 6-12-2021 TO -16-| ||11-2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM| ||IN MC 354 OF 2021| |Annexure A3|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 24-7-| ||2023 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMANDER, H| ||Q CAMP, IDUKKI| |Annexure A4|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ENVELOP RETURN TO| ||THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM IN MC 354 OF| ||2021, AS UNCLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER WITH| ||ENDORSEMENT DATED 24-2-2022| |Annexure A5|TRUE COPY OF THE RETURNED ENVELOP WITH| ||HEARING NOTED AS 14-11-2022 IN MC| ||354/2021 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM| |Annexure A6|TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED UNDER 128| ||OF CR.PC NUMBERED AS CMP NO. 66 OF 2023| ||IN MC NO.354/2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY| ||COURT, KOLLAM, DATED 2-5-2023| |Annexure A7|TRUE COPY OF THE B DAIRY IN CMP NO. 66 OF| ||2023 IN MC NO. 354 OF 2021| |Annexure A8|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ENVELOP RETURNED TO| ||THE FAMILY COURT IN CMP NO. 66 OF 2023,| ||WITH ENDORSEMENT NO SUCH ADDRESSEE WITH| ||HEARING DATED 29-5-2023| |Annexure A9|TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN MC 354/2021 BEFORE| ||THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM|