High Court Kerala High Court

Nazar vs Najeena on 6 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Nazar vs Najeena on 6 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 364 of 2008()


1. NAZAR,S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. NAJEENA, D/O.SAJITHA, 7 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :06/01/2009

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   R.P.F.C.No. 364 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009

                              O R D E R

The petitioner has preferred this revision petition through

the prison authorities. He is undergoing sentence consequent to

non-payment of maintenance due under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The

petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.250/-

p.m. to the claimant, his child, as per order in M.C. 3 of 1997.

He did not pay the amount due at the rate of Rs.250/- p.m. for a

period of 12 months, 9 months and 10 months respectively and

consequently the child through its mother filed applications for

execution as CMP Nos. 655 of 2003, 2132 of 2003 and 1420 of

2004. Later the amount of maintenance was enhanced to

Rs.500/- He committed default in making payment for a period

of 31 months at that rate. The child through its mother filed

execution petition claiming the said amount also in CMP 1822 of

2007.

2. The learned Judge of the Family Court, taking note of

the default in payment, sentenced the petitioner to undergo

R.P.F.C.No. 364 of 2008
2

imprisonment for a period of 12 months, 9 months, 10 months and 12

months respectively in these applications. The learned Judge directed

that the sentences shall run consecutively.

3. The petitioner has come to this Court to challenge the order

passed and the sentence imposed on him. He was granted the

assistance of a State Brief counsel. The counsel only submits that

leniency may be shown and the sentence imposed may be modified and

reduced. The learned counsel relies on the decision in Gopalakrishna

Pillai v. District Superintendent of Police (2008 (3) KLT 80) and

submits that merely because it is legal to impose the said sentence the

maximum sentence need not have been imposed. I note that the

petitioner has been remaining in custody from March, 2008. I am, in

these circumstances, satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the

sentence imposed on the petitioner can be modified and reduced.

4. This revision petition is allowed. The sentence imposed on

the petitioner is modified and reduced as follows:

CMP 655 of 2003 – 6 months

CMP 2132 of 2003 – 4 = months

R.P.F.C.No. 364 of 2008
3

CMP 1420 of 2004 – 5 months

CMP 1822 of 2007 – 6 months.

Communicate the order to the Prison authorities forthwith as also

to the Family Court, Kozhikode.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm