IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 240 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.16/2005 IN MC.385/2002 of Family Court, Kozhikode .................... PETITIONER ----------------- PRAKASAN, S/O.RAYYARAPPAN, C.NO.5937, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU MARTIN(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SULOCHANA, D/O.LATE THEYYATHER,MADATHIL MEETHAL VEEDU, KIZAKKEMURI, PADINNATTUMURY AMSOM, KIZHAKKUMURI DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. PRASOON (MINOR) 3. JISHNU (MINOR) 4. MEGHA (MINOR) (MINOR 2 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN OF 1ST RESPONDENT) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.240 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has suffered an order directing payment of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C at the rate of Rs.500/-, Rs.400/-, Rs.400/- and Rs.400/- per mensum to the claimants, that is his wife and three minor children. The claim was initiated in 2002 and maintenance was ordered at the above rates (Rs.1,700/- in all per mens um) from 31/10/2002. The petitioner did not make payment of the amounts due and four petitions were filed by the claimants for recovery of the amounts due. They are: i) C.M.P.No.1882/2003 - from 31/10/2002 to 30/10/2003 - Rs.20,400/- ii) C.M.P.No.16/05 - from 31/12/2003 to 30/12/2004 - Rs.20,400/- iii) C.M.P.No.1040/2006 - from 16/08/2005 to 15/08/2006 - Rs.20,400/- iv) C.M.P.No.1525/2007 - from 16/09/2006 to 15/09/2007 - Rs.20,400/- 2. No payment was made in all these petitions and the learned Magistrate, after taking all necessary steps in accordance with law, proceeded to pass orders dated 07/03/2008 in all these R.P.F.C.No.240/08 2 four petitions sentencing the petitioner to undergo S.I for a period of 12 months in each case. Thus the petitioner is obliged to undergo imprisonment for a total period of 48 months as per the impugned orders. 3. The petitioner has preferred this R.P.F.C through prison authorities. All the four orders referred above are challenged in this one R.P.F.C. I ignore the technicality that separate R.P.F.Cs have not been filed to assail each such order. The R.P.F.C has been preferred through prison authorities. The petitioner was not able to engage a counsel of his own. Services of a State Brief counsel was assigned for the petitioner. The learned counsel has advanced arguments. Respondents have not been served. I am satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for appearance of the respondents/claimants for disposal of this revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only contention that he can urge in the facts and circumstances of this case is that the sentence imposed is excessive. It is true that under law, imprisonment for a period of one month can be imposed for default in payment of maintenance for a period of one month. In that view of the matter, the sentence imposed in all these four petitions is perfectly within the outer limit of imprisonment R.P.F.C.No.240/08 3 prescribed under law. The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that leniency may be shown to the petitioner. His plight may be taken into account. He has no one to look after his interests. He has been remaining in custody from 07/03/2008. He was unable to prefer a revision petition by himself. This R.P.F.C has been preferred through prison authorities. He is unable to engage a counsel. In these circumstances, the imposition of the maximum permissible sentence under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C is not justified at all. Leniency may be shown to the petitioner, it is prayed. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs and considering the plight of the petitioner, I am satisfied that leniency can be shown to the petitioner. An idea about the plight of the petitioner can be gathered from the fact that he continues in custody from 07/03/2008 unable to make the payment of the maintenance amount. He is unable to even engage a counsel and this has obliged him to submit this R.P.F.C through prison authorities. 6. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, I am persuaded to agree that imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for half a month for default in payment of maintenance for each R.P.F.C.No.240/08 4 month shall serve the ends of justice eminently. It is unnecessary to be harsh; but at the same time it will have to be zealously ensured that an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C is complied with by the person who has suffered such order. Undue leniency and unnecessary harshness must both be avoided. Totality of circumstances has got to be taken into consideration. 7. In the result, a) This R.P.F.C is allowed. b) The sentence imposed as per the impugned orders - dated 07/03/2008 in Crl.M.P.Nos.1882/2003, 16/05, 1040/2006 and 1525/2007 all in M.C.No.385/2002 is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner in each such petition to undergo S.I for a period of 12 months, he is sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of six months in each case. The challenge succeeds only to the above extent. 12. Communicate this order to the Family Court forthwith. The Family Court shall issue revised warrant of commitment. Communicate the order forthwith to the prison authorities and to the petitioner through the prison authorities. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.240/08 5 R.P.F.C.No.240/08 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008