IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 222 of 2009() ---------------------- ORDER ON CMP.NOS.1352/2006, 1455/2006 AND 65/2007 OF FAMILY COURT PALAKKAD. (MC NO.107/1996 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MANNARKKAD) .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------- MUHAMMED, S/O.KANAKKAN AMBAZHAKKODE, ARIYUR DESOM, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. C.NO.6788, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR.R(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. ZAKKEENA, ARIYUR DASOM, MANNARKKAD. 2. SHERINA, 16 YEARS, MINOR. 3. MOSINA, 12 YEAARS, MINOR 4. ASHARA, 10 YEARS, MINOR 2 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.222 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel appointed on State Brief on behalf of petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is in challenge of the order of imprisonment passed by learned Judge of Family Court, Palakkad in three petitions filed by respondents seeking enforcement of the order of maintenance passed in their favour. C.M.P.No.1352 of 2006 was originally filed in the year, 2001 and later re-numbered as C.M.P.No.1352 of 2006. That petition was filed on 18.7.2001 and therefore, was within the permitted period of one year. C.M.P.No.1455 of 2006 is claiming arrears of maintenance for a period of twelve months preceding the filing of that petition. So far as C.M.P.No.65 of 2007 is concerned, claim is for a period more than twelve months preceding the filing of that petition. Learned Judge has observed that since C.M.P.No.1352 of 2006 was originally filed on 18.7.2001, it is within time and hence, no question of limitation arose . So far as C.M.P.No.1455 of 2006 is concerned also question of limitation did not raise since the claim is only for a period of twelve months preceding the filing of that petition. So far as C.M.P.No.65 of 2007 is concerned, though the claim is for a period more than twelve months preceding the filing of that petition, learned Judge has held that no question of limitation arise since C.M.P.No.65 of 2007 was filed during the pendency of earlier applications for enforcement of the order RP(FC) No.222/2009 2 (referred above). Learned Judge has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shantha v. B.G.Shivananjappa ( AIR 2005 SC 2410) where it has been held that when subsequent applications are filed in the same proceeding claiming arrears for subsequent periods, it is not a fresh application and hence question of limitation did not arise. Court below has also observed that so far as minor claimants are concerned, question of limitation did not arise since whether or not represented by guardian they are persons under disability. Reliance is placed on the decision in Laxmi v. Nakka Narayan Goud (1994 Crl.L.J. 565) as well. Hence, petitioner cannot challenge the order for his imprisonment on the ground that any of the petitions are barred by limitation. 3. Total amount due on the petitions above referred is more than Rs.50,000/-. Petitioner seeks leniency. But, going through his complaint, it does not appear to me that he is incapable of paying the amount. Respondents have not got maintenance from the year, 2001 onwards. In these circumstances I do not fin reason to show any indulgence in the matter of sentence imposed which is otherwise legal and proper. Resultantly, this revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks