IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 13 of 2010()
1. SUDARSHANAN NAIR P.G.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SANDHYA, D/O.VISWANATHAN,
... Respondent
2. HARITHA (MINOR), -DO-
3. HAREESH (MINOR), -DO-
For Petitioner :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
For Respondent :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
RPFC No.13 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1
and the father of respondents 2 and 3, the minor children born
out of the wedlock of them. In this revision petition he
challenges the order dated 4.12.2009 in Crl.M.P.460/2009,
which is an application filed by him for withdrawing the warrant
issued by the Family Court, Alappuzha upon an execution
petition that CMP No.5/2009 filed by the respondents herein.
2. The respondents herein approached the Family Court by
filing M.C.562/2005 for maintenance, which was allowed by
order dated 15.5.2007. As per the above order, the court below
granted maintenance @ Rs.750/- per month to respondents 1 and
2 and @ Rs.500/- to the third respondent and thus the petitioner
herein was ordered to pay a total sum of Rs.2,000/- as
maintenance to the claimants. As there was no payment the
claimants moved the Family Court by filing CMP 5/2009 for
execution of the order in the maintenance case. Consequently
warrant was issued against the revision petitioner and thus he
approached the Family Court by filing a Crl.M.P.460/09 to
2
withdraw the warrant, in the execution petition filed by the
respondent.
3. Admittedly the petitioner has made certain payment out
of the total arrears due to the respondents.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
as well as the contesting respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
revision petition can be closed by permitting the revision
petitioner to pay the whole balance amount in equal monthly
installments @ Rs.5,000/-. The counsel for the respondent is also
agreeable to the said suggestion and prayer. In the impugned
order the Family Court has already observed that certain amount
has already been deposited by the petitioner. Apart from that
when this revision petition was admitted the petitioner was
directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.10,000/- out of the arrears
and also directed to deposit Rs.1,800/- per month towards the
future maintenance.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned
above and in the light of the submissions made by learned
counsel appearing for the contesting parties, I am of the view
that this revision petition can be disposed of. Accordingly, this
3
revision petition is disposed of on the following terms.
a. The petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of
maintenance in equal monthly installments @ 5,000/- per month,
starting from the 1st of March, 2010.
b. While calculating the arrears the amount already paid
by him in the Family Court and also the deposit made by him as
per the order of this court dated 12.1.2010 in Crl.M.A.337/2010
shall be adjusted.
c. The respondents are free to withdraw the amount which
will be deposited by the petitioner as directed above.
d. The petitioner is directed to continue to deposit the
maintenance amount ordered by the trial court towards the
future maintenance.
e. The respondents are also free to withdraw such amount.
f. It is left open to the parties to resort permissible
statutory procedure, if any grievance still remain to be
redressed. With the above directions this revision petition is
disposed of.
V.K.Mohanan, Judge
cms