IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2095 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- CRA.330/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM CRMP.2239/2008 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/1ST APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ P.R. BINIL, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.RAVINDRA SINGH, PARACKADAVIL HOUSE, IRUMPANAM P.O., THRIPUITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN, SMT.J.DEEPTHI ROSE. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.D. RESMY, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.DIVAKARAN, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMBAKAPILLY P.O., (VIA) KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM-683 544. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR, SMT.NIMISHA ARUN. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.VENUGOPAL M.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.2095 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 22nd Day of July , 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the first respondent in Crl.M.P.No.2239 of 2008, preferred by the wife of the revision petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. By order dated 26.3.2009, the learned Magistrate directed the revision petitioner to pay an interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month to the claimants, the wife and the daughter of the revision petitioner. In the above order itself, the learned Magistrate has observed that the question of interim maintenance could not be decided on merit for want of co-operation on the part of the respondent, by not making himself available for hearing during the posting dates. Accordingly, as per the order itself, the petition was posted for hearing on 30.5.3009 and for depositing interim maintenance. 2. Aggrieved by the above order, the revision CRL.R.P. 2095/10 -:2:- petitioner had preferred an appeal, i.e. Crl.A.No.330/2009 in the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc-1) Ernakulam, and by judgment dated 17.11.2009, the appeal was dismissed with the observation that the challenge against the order passed by the trial court can be raised at the time of the final disposal of the matter. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial court issued the order without hearing the revision petitioner and without giving opportunity to adduce evidence. It is pointed out that even the petitioner was not examined by the learned Magistrate and therefore, the direction issued by the learned Magistrate is without any basis and materials. 4. On hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as the contesting respondent and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the main petition is pending for consideration and as per the impugned order, the only direction imposed against the revision petitioner is to deposit monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- to the claimants, CRL.R.P. 2095/10 -:3:- the wife and daughter. From the impugned order it appears that the above order is issued as an interim measure and the final decision is yet to be taken. It is also beyond dispute that the first petitioner is the wife of the revision petitioner and the 2nd petitioner is their daughter and the maintenance now ordered by the court below is in favour of his wife and daughter. The marriage and the existence of marital bondage and the paternity of the child, namely, Haripriya are admitted. Therefore, I am of the view that the revision petitioner is bound to maintain the claimants and to obey the direction issued by the learned Magistrate and the same will be subject to the final decision to be taken in the main case based upon the evidence to be adduced. In the light of the above facts and circumstances ,I am of the view that this Crl.R.P. can be disposed of relegating the revision petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate and directing the revision petitioner to deposit the balance arrears within one month from today. On deposit of the amount within the above time, the learned Magistrate is directed to take up CRL.R.P. 2095/10 -:4:- the main case and to proceed with the same and dispose of it on merit as expeditiously as possible. The Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.R.P. 2095/10 -:5:-