IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 504 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/05/2007 IN CMP 1952/2000, 1718/01, 288/03 & 1197/05 IN MC.234/1996 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------------- DAMODARAN, C.NO.4859, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.G.MANOJ(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 504 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance to his wife and child at the rate Rs.500/- each p.m. That order has become final. The petitioner did not make the payment of the amounts due. The claimants, in these circumstances, went before the Family Court claiming recovery of the amounts. The amounts could not be recovered and ultimately the learned Judge of the Family Court, invoking his powers under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., directed the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for default in making the payment of the amounts due. 2. Four C.M.P.s were filed by the claimants and in three of such petitions the petitioner was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 12 months each. In the fourth, the learned Judge sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of 11 months. Separate orders were passed in these petitions on R.P.F.C.No. 504 of 2007 2 15.5.2007. The petitioner continues in custody from that date. The petitioner did not challenge the orders by filing any revision petition. He has later preferred this revision petition challenging the orders passed in all the four petitions. 3. The petitioner had no counsel to represent him and therefore it was directed that the services of a legal aid counsel be made available to the petitioner. Accordingly Sri. G.G. Manoj has entered appearance. Arguments have been heard. 4. The learned counsel, Sri. Manoj, contends that though the orders passed by the learned Judge cannot be said to be illegal or irregular, on behalf of the petitioner he wants to urge the only contention that the sentence imposed is excessive. The totality of circumstances may be taken into consideration. The fact that the petitioner remains in custody from 15.5.2007 may be taken into consideration. It is unlikely that he will go to prison and remain there to undergo the sentence of imprisonment till now if he could in any manner raise the amounts, submits the counsel. The counsel only prays R.P.F.C.No. 504 of 2007 3 that leniency may be shown and the sentence imposed on the petit oner may be reduced. 5. Notice was given to the respondents/claimants. They have entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel submits that there is no room for leniency at all. The petitioner is adamantly refusing to pay any amount as maintenance. His obstinacy and adamancy is revealed from his choosing to go to prison without making any payment. The default is for the period from 1.10.1999 to 1.8.2005, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I take note of the fact that the petitioner has been remaining in custody from 15.5.2007. I take note of the further fact that he has not been able to make any payment so far. I do also take note of the fact that he has not been able to even engage a counsel of his own to advance the above sole contention regarding leniency. Taking the totality of circumstances into account, notwithstanding the fact that the plight of the claimants is also very pathetic, I am satisfied that severity of the R.P.F.C.No. 504 of 2007 4 sentence can be reduced. This revision petition can succeed only to the above extent. In the nature and circumstances of the case, I am ignoring and overlooking the technical inadequacy that no separate revisions have been filed to challenge the different orders. 7. In the result: (a) This revision petition is allowed in part. (b) The sentences imposed on the petitioner in the four petitions, i.e. C.M.P. Nos. 1952 of 2000, 1718 of 2001, 288 of 2003 and 1197 of 2005 as per orders dt. 15.5.2007 are reduced to S.I. for a period of four months each. 8. Communicate the above direction to the learned Judge of the Family Court forthwith, who shall issue revised warrant of commitment immediately. (R. BASANT) Judge tm