IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3138 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRRP.18/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------- BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, BALAMURALI MANDIRAM, VALATHUNGAL, ERAVIPURAM. BY ADV. MR. K.SHAJ MR.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SAUMYA, AGED 21 YEARS, V.S.SADANAM, VALATHUNGAL, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3138 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 17th November 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the respondent in C.M.P.11284/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam. By Annexure-A4 order learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,750/- to second respondent and Rs.750/- to the minor child. As is clear from Annexure-A4 order, the order was passed as suggested to by the petitioner which was accepted by first respondent. Petitioner challenged the order before the Sessions court, Kollam in Crl.R.P.18/2009. Learned Sessions Judge on going through the order and the records found that the order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as agreed to by the petitioner and hence he is not entitled to challenge the same. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A4 order contending that courts below did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner. Crmc 3138/09 2 2. Though learned counsel submitted that Annexure-A4 order was passed as an ex-parte order, it is absolutely clear from the order that petitioner was present and the order was passed after hearing both sides and in fact, it was the petitioner who suggested that he is prepared to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,750/- to the wife and Rs.750/- to the minor child and that suggestion was accepted by first respondent. It is based on the agreed settlement, the order was passed. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with that order. Learned counsel then submitted that petitioner may be granted time to pay the amount. Order was passed as early as on 29/6/2009. Hence I find no justification for seeking extension. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.