IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 27 of 2009()
1. SANTHOSH, S/O.VELLAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PUSHPA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. MANASA, AGED 4 YEARS (MINOR)
For Petitioner :SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR R CHERTHALA (SB)
For Respondent :SMT.V.SREEJA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :24/06/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J
----------------------------------------
R.P(F.C).27 of 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this 24th day of June 2009
ORDER
Heard counsel on both sides.
2. This revision is in challenge of separate orders passed by
learned Judge of Family Court, Kozhikode in Crl.M.P.Nos.1150/03, 918/04,
896/05, 825/06 and 1035/07. These petitions are filed by respondents-wife
and daughter seeking enforcement of the order of maintenance passed in
their favour in M.C No.325/02.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner after going through the records
of the courts below has submitted that before ordering imprisonment
distress warrant was issued for realization of the amount but it was not
fruitful. There is no contention that the petitions claiming maintenance are
for a period beyond 12 months preceding the filing of the petitions. Hence
question of limitation does not arise. So far as respondent No.2 is
concerned, she is a minor (represented by respondent No.1, her mother) and
hence the plea of limitation is not available against her. It is also seen that
it was when Crl.M.P.No.1150/03 was pending that subsequent petitions for
enforcement of the order were filed. Hence also question of limitation does
not arise.
R.P(F.C).No.27/09 2
4. Contention raised in the memorandum of revision concerning
liability of petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents do not arise for
consideration at this stage. Petitioner states that he is undergoing
imprisonment since long. Learned counsel requested that leniency may be
shown to the petitioner.
5. As per Sec.125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short,
“the Code”) imprisonment that may be awarded for non-payment may
extend to one month. The Code does not prescribe any minimum
imprisonment for default. As per the impugned orders petitioner has to
undergo imprisonment for a total period of five years. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that imprisonment for a period
of six months each on each petition, to run consecutively, is sufficient in the
ends of justice.
6. Resultantly, this revision is allowed to the extent that
imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is modified as six months each on
each of the petitions, to run consecutively. Court below shall issue
modified warrant to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur
immediately.
THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE
Sbna/
R.P(F.C).No.27/09 3