High Court Kerala High Court

A.M.Chandran vs R.Bindhu on 24 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
A.M.Chandran vs R.Bindhu on 24 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 309 of 2009()


1. A.M.CHANDRAN,S/O.CHANDU, C.NO.5252,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. R.BINDHU, 29 YEARS,D/O.LATE RAMAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. RINIL, 1 YEAR AND 9 MONTHS, MINOR.

3. GREESHMA, 4 MONTHS, MINOR

                For Petitioner  :ADV.ADEEP ANWAR(STATE BRIEF)

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :24/08/2009

 O R D E R
                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                            --------------------------------------
                              R.P.(FC) No.309 of 2009
                            --------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009.

                                         ORDER

Heard counsel for petitioner appointed on State Brief.

2. In this revision presented from jail where petitioner is detained,

challenge is to the separate orders passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in

C.M.P.Nos.645 of 2004, 809 of 2005 and 1609 of 2006, all under Section 128 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. Contention of petitioner is that he is unable to

pay maintenance. It is stated that he was undergoing treatment at the time the

Family Court passed the exparte order for maintenance against him. Learned

counsel contends that the necessary satisfaction to set petitioner exparte is not

entered in the order awarding maintenance.

3. Legality and correctness of order awarding maintenance is not a

matter to be looked in this revision. That is a matter which the petitioner has to

challenge in separate proceedings if he is otherwise entitled to that course.

4. So far as the orders impugned in this revision are concerned, it is

seen that imprisonment is for a period of twelve (12) months each. It is directed

that the sentence shall run consecutively. Petitioner was taken into custody on

22.8.2007. He has not paid the maintenance payable to the respondents, his

wife and children. However taking into account all relevant circumstances I am

RP(FC) No.309/2009

2

satisfied that imprisonment for a period of eight (8) months each is sufficient in

the ends of justice which shall run consecutively. Orders under challenge are

modified accordingly.

This revision petition is allowed to the extent that imprisonment awarded

to the petitioner on C.M.P.Nos.645 of 2004, 809 of 2005 and 1609 of 2006 is

modified as eight (8) months each which shall run consecutively. Court below

shall issue modified warrant to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks