IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 988 of 2008()
1. VAMADEVAN, SAJEEV MANDIRAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. PADMINI, BIJU VILASAM, NILAMEL.
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :10/07/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.988 of 2008
--------------------------
ORDER
Under Annexure-I order dated 25.9.2006 in M.C.
No.44/2005, pursuant to a settlement between the
parties, petitioner was directed to pay a
consolidated amount of Rs.3,25,000/- towards
maintenance of the daughter Vindhya, including her
marriage, educational and treatment expenses under
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner did not pay the amount. Second
respondent, the mother and guardian of the minor
daughter, was compelled to file C.M.P.No.200/2007
before the Family Court, for realisation of the
amount. When petitioner appeared and did not pay
the amount, on 29.6.2007, he was arrested and
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty
days. After expiry of the period, petitioner did
not pay the amount. Family Court, as per order
dated 8.10.2007, got the petitioner arrested and he
CRMC 988/08 2
was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month. After expiry of that period also, petitioner
did not pay the amount and on 27.11.2007 Family
Court passed an order to issue warrant under
Section 421(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure to
realise the amount by recourse to revenue recovery
proceedings and C.M.P.No.200/2007 was dismissed. On
finding that maintenance amount cannot be realised,
second respondent filed an application to cancel
that order on 12.12.2007. Learned Magistrate
cancelled the order dated 27.11.2007 and issued non
bailable warrant against the petitioner. This
petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash that order contending
that the order cancelling the warrant issued under
Section 421(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and
then issuing non bailable warrant without notice to
the petitioner is illegal.
2. When this petition was admitted on 6.3.2008
and an order of stay was granted, petitioner was
CRMC 988/08 3
directed to deposit Rs.50,000/-. It was admittedly
deposited. Thereafter, petitioner did not pay any
portion of the amount covered under Annexure-I
order. Learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent submitted that daughter is mentally ill
and constant treatment is needed and settlement was
arrived at considering all these facts and in such
circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with
the order, as petitioner purposely defaulted
payment of maintenance amount.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case,
I do not find any reason to show further indulgence
to the petitioner. But, as his submission is that
if notice was received by him he would have paid
some amount before the Family Court, petitioner is
directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- before the Family
Court within one month from today. If that amount
is deposited, Family Court may consider the
question whether some more time is to be granted to
the petitioner for paying the balance amount. If
CRMC 988/08 4
the petitioner fails to pay the amount, Family
Court is competent to direct the petitioner to
undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days.
Petitioner is directed to appear before Family
Court on 17.8.2009. It is made clear that Family
Court need not issue further notice to the
petitioner herein. If that amount or any amount is
deposited, second respondent is entitled to
withdraw the same.
Petition is disposed.
10th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv