High Court Kerala High Court

Arayal Parambil Ramadas vs Vengulil Valappil Pushpa on 26 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Arayal Parambil Ramadas vs Vengulil Valappil Pushpa on 26 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 315 of 2009()


1. ARAYAL PARAMBIL RAMADAS, S/O.RAMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VENGULIL VALAPPIL PUSHPA, 46 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. RAHUL, 17 YEARS (MINOR),

                For Petitioner  :SMT.SINDHU THANKAM (STATE BRIEF)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :26/08/2009

 O R D E R
                           THOMAS P JOSEPH, J
                      ----------------------------------------
                          R.P.F.C.No.315 of 2009
                      ---------------------------------------
                   Dated this 26th day of August 2009

                                     ORDER

Heard counsel for petitioner appointed on State brief.

2. The revision is in challenge of order dated 04-12-2008 on

C.M.P(Ex.)No.1232 of 2080 in M.C.No.113 of 2003 of the Family Court,

Malappuram. Petitioner failed to pay maintenance to respondent

Nos.1 and 2, wife and son for a period of 48 months. The total amount

of arrears payable is Rs.1,23,000/-. When he was arrested and

produced before court he had no explanation for non payment and

hence learned Judge directed his detention in the prison for a period of

30 months. It is contended by learned counsel that the order for

payment of maintenance was ex parte and further, that respondent

No.2 has already attained majority.

3. If respondent No.2 has attained majority that is a matter

which petitioner has to take up in the court below under section 127 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the order for payment of

maintenance passed is ex parte that is also a matter which petitioner

has to take up in the court below in appropriate proceedings.

4. On going through the order challenge I do not find any

illegality, irregularity or impropriety requiring interference. However,

considering the difficulties of petitioner expressed in his petition I am

satisfied that imprisonment for a period of 20 months is sufficient in

R.P.F.C.No.315 of 2009 2

the ends of justice. The order under challenge is modified accordingly.

Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed in part and the period

of imprisonment is modified as 20 (twenty) months. Court below shall

issue modified warrant to the Superintendent of prison concerned.

THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE
Sbna/