IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 OP (FC).No. 344 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 242/2010 IN MC.5/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER ---------------------- NIKHITH CHANDRAN N.M., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, CHENGUTTY HOUSE, PUTHOORVAYAL, MEPPADI, WAYANAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DHANYA K.S., AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.SHIVADASAN, KOWSTHUBAM (H) NEAR PHC, MEPPADI P.O., WAYANAD PIN : 673577. 2. ADHNAN GOVIND, AGED 6 YEARS, S/O.NIKHITH CHANDRAN & DHANYA K.S., KOWSTHUBAM (H) NEAR PHC, MEPPADI P.O., WAYANAD, PIN : 673577. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. *********************** O.P(F.C) No.344 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance to his wife and child. That order is challenged in an R.P.F.C before this Court, it is submitted. That R.P.F.C is filed along with a petition for condonation of delay. Orders have not been passed in that application for condonation of delay or the R.P.F.C, it is urged. 2. In the meantime, the respondents have initiated steps for execution of the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Admittedly no orders of stay have been passed by the R.P.F.C Court in the matter. 3. It is further submitted that after the order was passed in Section 125 Cr.P.C proceedings, the wife has gone abroad and the petitioner has subsequently filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. That petition is also pending before the court below. O.P(F.C) No.344 of 2010 2 4. At this juncture, the petitioner has come to this Court. What is his grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that execution may not be permitted to proceed before the disposal of the R.P.F.C and the petition now filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 5. Admittedly the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C is for a period subsequent to the period for maintenance during which execution is claimed in the maintenance order. Therefore the prayer to stay the proceedings in the execution petition awaiting disposal of the petition filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C is without any merit. 6. If the petitioner wants to pray for stay of the proceedings pending disposal of the R.P.F.C, he should do that by filing a proper application before the court, before which the R.P.F.C is pending. We find no merit in a separate and different O.P(F.C) being filed seeking that relief. 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is no merit whatsoever in this petition. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. We do however make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the petitioner's option to seek O.P(F.C) No.344 of 2010 3 appropriate direction from the Bench before which the R.P.F.C is pending. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) rtr/