IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 858 of 2006() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP.2207/03&356/05 IN CRMP.1693/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR MC.27/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.ABBAS, S/O.MOIDU HAJI, AGED 31 YEARS, NOW UNDERGOING IMPRISONMENT AT CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR, PERMENANT RESIDENT OF MUTTAM, P.O.VENGARA, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. M.K.SUBAIDA, D/O.HABEEB, HASEENA MANZIL, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTTOM, P.O.VENGARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. ANEEZ.M.K., (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY M.K.SUBAIDA, D/O.HABEEB, HASEENA MANZIL, MUTTOM P.O., VENGARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. FATHIMA.M.K. (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY M.K.SUBAIDA, D/O.HABEEB, HASEENA MANZIL, MUTTOM P.O. VENGARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R1 & 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM FOR R4 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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.