IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 295 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/05/2009 IN CMP500/2005 IN MC.107/1998 of FAMILY COURT KAZARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SKRISHNA @ BALAKRISHNA,S/O.RAMAPATTALI, C NO 6801,CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.RAFEEK.K.(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12 /2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ====================== R.P.F.C. No. 295 of 2009 ====================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT Respondents herein, who are wife and two children of the revision petitioner obtained an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure in M.C.No 107/1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kasargod. Thereby the revision petitioner was ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to each of the respondents with effect from 16.11.98. Alleging that the revision petitioner failed to pay maintenance from 16.11.1998 to 15.7.2000, the respondents herein filed C.M.P.No.83/05, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kasargod. After an ordial proceedings extending to about 5 years the petition was transferred to the Family Court, Kasargod. The Family Court by Order dated 23.5.2009, sentenced the revision petitioner to R.P.F.C. No. 295 of 2009 2 imprisonment for 9 months. The order of the Family Court reads as follows:- “Petitioner present. respondent produced. No payment. Respondent has undergone imprisonment for 14 months till date. Arrears of 9 months are still due. No payment so far. Sentenced to 9 months imprisonment for the remaining arrears.” 2. The order impugned would show that at the time when the impugned order was passed the revision petitioner had already completed the period of imprisonment for 14 months. Taking into account that now the revision petitioner had already undergone imprisonment continuously for about 20 months, I find that the imprisonment already undergone would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. While confirming the order imposing sentence and treating the period of detention already undergone as sufficient sentence, the revision petitioner shall stand released and set at liberty. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mns R.P.F.C. No. 295 of 2009 3