IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 OP (FC).No. 282 of 2010(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/09/2010 IN CRMP.349/10,CMP.185/09 IN MC.108/2007 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER -------------------- RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR P.B.NO.298, CENTRAL POST OFFICE VILAYATH SALALA, SULTHNATE OF OMAN, POST 211 NOW RESIDING AT MARANGATTU VANAJALAYAM VEEDU KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KAPPIL EAST MURI,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VANAJA, AGED 48 YEARS D/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR MARANGATTU VANAJALAYAM VEEDU KAPPIL EAST MURI, KRISHANAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. RINTU, AGED 18 YEARS S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,MARANGATTU VANAJALAYAM VEEDU KAPPIL EAST MURI, KRISHANAPURAM VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. *********************** O.P(F.C) No.282 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance to the respondents. The amount due has not been paid obliging the claimants to approach the Family Court for execution. Steps in execution are in progress. The amount due has not been paid in full so far. The petitioner prayed for instalment facility. The court below was not pleased to grant the same. The said request was rejected by the impugned order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person, aged above 60 years. If instalment facility is not granted, the petitioner will be obliged to go to prison in execution of the warrant of arrest issued against him. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that leniency may be shown and instalment facility may be offered to the petitioner. 3. We are unable to accept the request. In a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, we find no merit in the prayer for instalment facility for payment of the amount due. The O.P(F.C) No.282 of 2010 2 petitioner must discharge the liability expeditiously. No instalment facility deserves to be granted. The rejection of the prayer for instalment facility is thus found to be absolutely justified. 4. However, we observe that if the petitioner deposits a substantial portion of the amount in arrears and undertakes to pay the balance amount within a short stipulated period of time, the court below shall be at liberty to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 5. With the above observations, this O.P is dismissed. 6. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner immediately. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) rtr/