IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2277 of 2009() ------------------------- MC.112/2005 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ K.SASI, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN, S.S.BHAVAN, KALLIKOODU, SHANTHIPURAM, AYIROOPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/PETITIONER. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THANKAMONY,D/O.SAROJINI, KOTTUMYILA VEEDU, ALINAD MURI, SASTHAVATTOM, KATTAYIKKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P. RAVEENDRA BABU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2277 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No. 112/2005 on the file of Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. As petitioner failed to appear, he was directed to pay maintenance by an ex parte order. Petitioner filed I.A.No.144/2008 to set aside the ex parte order. It was allowed under Annexure-C order, on terms. Petitioner was directed to deposit Rupees Fifteen thousand within one month. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the direction under Annexure-C order to deposit Rupees Fifteen thousand. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. Though notice was sent to the second respondent, it was not served on her and it was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that second respondent, the wife is living in adultery and a complaint was filed before Mangalapuram CRMC 2277/09 2 Police on the ground of man missing and she was brought before the police and a statement was recorded and it shows that she was living in adultery and in such circumstances, she is not entitled to get maintenance and so, the direction to deposit Rupees Fifteen thousand is to be quashed. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court to deposit Rupees Fifteen thousand, to set aside the ex parte order. But, the order is modified to the extent that the amount so deposited shall not be disbursed to the second respondent till the disposal of M.C.No.112/2005. Petition is disposed. 3rd August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv