IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 297 of 2009()
1. MUHAMMED SHAFI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NADIYA, D/O.ALAVI ERAMBATHIL,
... Respondent
2. FATHIMA SHERIN, 3.1/2 YEARS(MINOR)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :14/08/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P(FC) NO.297 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009
O R D E R
————–
Heard both sides.
2. Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to
respondents in M.C. No.498 of 2006 of the Family Court, Malappuram.
Claiming that petitioner has not complied with the order, respondents
filed C.M.P(Exe.) No.608 of 2009 for realisation of the amount of
Rs.86,000/-. In the meantime they also obtained a decree for
realisation of certain amounts in O.P. No.366 of 2007 and that decree
is being executed by filing E.P. No.116 of 2008. Court below found
that petitioner had no sufficient cause for non-payment of the amount
of maintenance and as per order dated 6.8.2009 directed that
petitioner be imprisoned for a period twelve months. Grievance of
petitioner is that there is a further direction that after the
imprisonment is suffered petitioner shall be produced in the court
below as he is respondent in E.P. No.116 of 2008 in that court. It is
contended by learned counsel that it is open to the respondents to
execute the decree in O.P. No.366 of 2007 but the direction that
petitioner should be produced before the court below is not warranted.
It is also submitted that petitioner is prepared to deposit Rs.86,000/-
R.P(FC) No.297 of 2009
-: 2 :-
payable on C.M.P(Exe.) No.608 of 2009 within a period of one month
fro this day.
3. Having heard counsel on both sides, I am inclined to think
that the direction in the impugned order that as and when petitioner is
released from jail he shall be produced in the court below in
connection with the execution of E.P. No.116 of 2008 is not warranted.
Hence that part of the order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set
aside.
Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following
extent:
The direction contained in the impugned order to cause
production of petitioner in the court below as and when he is released
from jail is set aside. It is directed that petitioner shall be released
from jail on his suffering the term of imprisonment as ordered by the
court below or on his paying the entire amount payable on C.M.P(Exe.)
No.608 of 2009, whichever is earlier. In other respect this revision will
stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv
R.P(FC) No.297 of 2009
-: 3 :-