IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1004 of 2011() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/02/2010 IN CMP 740/2010 IN MC.9/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): (RESPONDENT NO.1): --------------------------------------------------------- V.R.LIRILKUMAR, S/O. B.A.RAJAGOPALAN, 336, VIVEK NAGAR, BANGALORE-47. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): (PETITIONER & STATE): --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AARATHY PANDIAN, SREE MAHALAKSHMI, KARALAGAM WARD, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 013. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1004 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Notice to the first respondent is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass. 2. Petitioner is the first respondent in M.C. No.9 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. That is a petition filed by the first respondent under Section 12, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In that proceeding, first respondent filed C.M.P. No.740 of 2010 for an order for interim maintenance and according to the petitioner, without hearing him learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed order directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of `3,000/- and `2,000/- per month, respectively to the first respondent and her child. Petitioner says that he learned about the ex parte order only later. However he has sent a Demand Draft for `30,000/- and deposited `5,000/- in the trial court. According to the petitioner he is not being allowed to contest the case unless he deposited the entire balance amount due as per CRL.M.C. No.1004 of 2011 -: 2 :- the ex parte order and in the meantime learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also issued a distress warrant for recovery of the balance amount. Hence this petition. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor also. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to think that distress warrant issued to the petitioner could be kept in abeyance until disposal of M.C. No.9 of 2010 but subject to conditions so that in the meantime first respondent and her child will get some amount for their maintenance. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of in the following lines: (a) Distress warrant issued for recovery of amount from petitioner will stand in abeyance until disposal of M.C. No.9 of 2009 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner deposited in the trial court `10,000/- (Rupees Ten CRL.M.C. No.1004 of 2011 -: 3 :- thousand only) for payment to the first respondent and her child within two weeks from this day. (ii) Petitioner continues to pay to the first respondent and her child at the rate of `2,000/- and `1,000/- respectively, per month from 01.04.2011 until disposal of M.C. No.9 of 2010. (b) In case any of the above condition is violated the order issuing the distress warrant will stand revived and consequence of that warrant will follow. (c) It is directed that since petitioner is coming from Bangalore and considering the nature of proceeding, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate need not insist on physical presence of petitioner provided he appeared through counsel and co-operated with the enquiry in the matter. CRL.M.C. No.1004 of 2011 -: 4 :- (d) Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall expedite enquiry and disposal of the case. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv