- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SHIJU JOSHUA, v. ETHAN
2025:KER:62432
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 19THDAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
RPFC NO. 13 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2018 IN MC NO.182 OF 2016 OF
FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SHIJU JOSHUA,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O E.I.JOSHUA, EDAVUNIKKUNNATHIL VILLA,
CHERYANADU P.O.CHENGANUR,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ETHAN,
AGED 9 YEARS
(MINOR), S/O SHIJU JOSHUA, PUTHIYEL MURUPPEL,
KUMBAZHA NORTH, MYLAPRA NORTH KONNI,
REPRESENTED HIS NEXT FRIEND MOTHER DEEPTHI THOMAS
PIN 689 671.
2 DEEPTHI THOMAS
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O P.Y. THOMAS, PUTHIYEL MURUPPEL, KUMBAZHA
NORTH, MYLAPRA NORTH KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT PIN 689 671.
BY ADV SHRI.C.A.RAJEEV
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
1
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------- R.P.F.C. No.13 of 2019
---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 26.09.2018 in MC No.182/2016 of Family Court, Pathanamthitta. Admittedly the impugned order is an exparte order by which the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at the rate of Rs.6.000/- and Rs.7,000/-. According to the petitioner, the reason which leads to the exparte order is not correct and he has not received any notice.
2. I am of the considered opinion that such contentions cannot be raised in a revision filed against the exparte order. The revisional court can only look into the exparte order and find out whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. If the petitioner want to challenge the reason which leads to the exparte order, he has to file an application to set aside the exparte order. The counsel for the petitioner
2
submitted that the petitioner intend to file such application. If that is the case, this revision petition need not be entertained.
3. The petitioner is free to file appropriate application to set aside the exparte order. I make it clear that if such an application is filed, the time during which the revision was pending before this Court will be excluded while calculating the filing delay (09.01.2019 to 19.08.2025). All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this revision petition are left open. With the above observation, this revision petition is disposed of.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
3
APPENDIX OF RPFC 13/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 THE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.9.2018 IN
M.C NO 182 OF 2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
4
Alert