High Court Kerala High Court

K.Abbas vs M.K.Subaida on 15 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.Abbas vs M.K.Subaida on 15 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 858 of 2006()


1. K.ABBAS, S/O.MOIDU HAJI, AGED 31 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.K.SUBAIDA, D/O.HABEEB,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ANEEZ.M.K., (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY

3. FATHIMA.M.K. (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SURENDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :15/10/2009

 O R D E R
                                     K.HEMA, J.
                              --------------------------------
                              Crl.M.C.No.858 of 2006
                             ----------------------------------
                      Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009

                                        ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions from

the petitioner. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the

matter would have become infructuous since the order challenged herein is passed

in the petitions filed under section 125(3), for execution of a maintenance order

and those petitions were filed as early as in 2006 while the petitioner was in jail.

He would have already undergone the imprisonment, it is submitted.

2. The proceedings would show that he was undergoing imprisonment

in Central jail and the vakalath was executed before the Superintendent of Central

Jail. It is also brought to my notice by the respondent’s counsel that even though

there was an order to release the petitioner from custody, on certain conditions,

the petitioner has not complied with the condition, by depositing an amount of

Rs.10,000/- in all the five cases, as directed.

In the above circumstances, I find that there is no purpose in proceeding

with this case especially since even the petitioner’s counsel is not having

instructions in the matter. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
Skj.