IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 216 of 2009()
1. IDHAYATH,S/O.ABDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.P.SHAKEENA, D/O.K.MUHAMMED,
... Respondent
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :23/06/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
R.P.(FC)No.216 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009.
ORDER
This revision is in challenge of order passed by the court below on
C.M.P.Nos.1885 of 2002, 532 of 2004 and 789 of 2005 in M.C.No.93 of 2002.
Petitioner was ordered to pay maintenance to the respondents, his wife and
minor daughter. To enforce the order of maintenance for various periods,
respondents filed the above petitions. As petitioner did not pay the amount,
after compliance with the necessary formalities he was ordered to be imprisoned
for the respective defaults. On C.M.P.No.1885 of 2002 petitioner was directed
to pay Rs.14,000/- for a period of four and a half months. As he did not pay the
amount he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four months. On
C.M.P.No.532 of 2004 he was directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as per the order of
this Court before 31.12.2007. Rs.36,000/- was due from him for a period of
twelve months. Hence, excluding the period of imprisonment already undergone,
petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven months. In
C.M.P.No.789 of 2005, the amount payable for twelve months is Rs.36,000/- .
That amount was also not deposited by the petitioner as per the order of this
Court. In that petition, as petitioner did not pay the amount he has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for twelve months.
RP(FC) No.216/2009
2
Learned counsel appointed on State Brief for the petitioner submitted
that unless the petitioner is released he will not be able to pay . It is seen that he
had sufficient time to pay the arrears for the respective periods which he did not
make use of. He has not shown sufficient cause for non-payment of the amount.
No illegality or irregularity is pointed out in the orders under challenge. As such
revision petition has to fail. It is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks