IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1240 of 2010()
1. SUBRAMANIYA PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AJITHAKUMARY, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. AKHIL (MINOR) AGED 14 YEARS,
3. ANJU(MINOR) AGED 12 YEARS,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI. K.SHAJ
For Respondent :SMT.ASHA CHERIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :28/09/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1240 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Maintenance was granted by Family Court,
Thiruvalla in M.C.No.175/2005 in favour of
respondents 1 to 3. They filed Annexure-A1 petition
(C.M.P.No.207/2009) under Section 128 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to issue warrant for realisation
of the maintenance for the period from 26.7.2006 to
26.7.2007. By Annexure-A3 order Family Court passed
an order initiating revenue recovery proceedings
through District Collector stating that though
respondents, petitioners before the Family Court,
were present, petitioner, the counter petitioner,
was absent. This petition is filed to quash
Annexure-A3 order contending that in view of the
first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Judge should
not have issued warrant for realisation of the
amount beyond the period provided under the proviso
CRMC 1240/10 2
and after receipt of the notice in Annexure-A1
petition, petitioner appeared and filed Annexure-A2
objection raising this contention, but, it was not
considered by the learned Judge.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and respondents 1 to 3 were heard.
3. Annexure-A3 order shows that the order was
passed as if petitioner/counter petitioner did not
appear on service of notice in C.M.P.No.207/2009
and did not raise any objection. Annexure-A2
objection filed by the petitioner shows that on the
day on which Annexure-A3 order was passed,
petitioner filed an objection, inter alia,
contending that in view of first proviso to sub-
section (3) of Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, petition will not lie. Unfortunately,
Family Court did not consider the objection.
4. In such circumstances, Annexure-A3 order is
quashed. C.M.P.No.207/2009 is remanded to the
Family Court for passing appropriate order in
CRMC 1240/10 3
accordance with law, considering the contentions
raised by the petitioner in Annexure-A2 objection,
based on first proviso to sub-section (3) of
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Petition is disposed.
28th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv