A revision petition challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear or provide instructions despite court notices.
The revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941
RPFC.No.298 of 2010
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 762/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
ABDUL KHADER, S/O.AYAMUNNI, POTTAKAD HOUSE,NJAVALANGAD,ERAVAKKAD PO,PALAKKAD, DISTRICT,REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MUHAMMED,S/O.AYAMUNNI,POTTAKAD HOUSE,NJAVALANGAD,, ERAVAKKAD PO,PALAKKAD DISTRIC
BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS:
1 SHAKEENA
THEKKARATHODI HOUSE,GHANDINAGAR,LAKSHAM VEEDU,, KIZHISSERI,KUZHIMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN 673 641.
3 RISHIDA-MINORREPRESENTED BY MOTHER-THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC.No.298 of 2010
2
ORDER
A maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram under Section 125 Cr.P.C in M.C 762/2009 is under challenge in this revision brought under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. When the revision came up for hearing last time, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he has no instruction from the party. On a prevision occasion also, the learned counsel sought time to get necessary instructions. Notice was ordered by the court to the revision petitioner to appear in court. Despite notice, he has not turned up nor he has contacted the counsel to give instructions. It appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the revision or that he is not aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court. In the above circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
ma
Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE
/True copy. P.S to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revision petition maintainable under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act for a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C was prosecuted by the petitioner.
Whether the revision petition is liable to be dismissed due to non-prosecution despite notice being served.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ABDUL KHADER
SHAKEENA
SINSIYA
RISHIDA
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
