IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 RPFC.No. 198 of 2010() ---------------------- CMP.79/2010 in M.C.No.5/08 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT (S): --------------------------------------------------------- VISWANATHAN, S/O.VELU ACHARI, QUARTERS NO.C.N 17, NATTAKOM TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD., MULAMKUZHAKARA, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA SMT.M.V.RAAVEE MOL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.P.PRASEETHA VISWANATHAN, VIPIN NIVAS, PULLAD MURI, KOLPRAM VILLAGE. 2. VISHNU (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER & GUARDIAN, A.P. PRASEETHA VISWANATHAN (THE FIRST RESPONDENT) VIPIN NIVAS, PULLAD MURI, KOLPRAM VILLAGE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R3. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/ 06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------ R.P.(F.C.)No.198 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated the 1st Day of June, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.5/08 and by the final order in the above M.C., he is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as maintenance to the claimants therein, which was subsequently enhanced to the tune of Rs.2,500/-. As on today, the liability of the revision petitioner is to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as maintenance to his wife and Rs.1,000/- to his son. 2. Now the challenge in this revision petition is against a notice issued by the Family Court, Thiruvalla, u/s.128 of Cr.P.C. in C.M.P.79/10, by which he is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.27,500/-, being the arrears of maintenance allowance for the period of 31.3.2009 to 28.2.2010 and the said notice is issued on the execution petition filed by the claimants and the case now stands posted on 2.6.2010. 3. The learned counsel on the basis of Annexure A submitted that, already a sum of Rs.27,000/- was recovered from R.P.(F.C.)No.198 of 2010 2 the salary of the revision petitioner and deposited in the Family Court. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that, beside the above payment, some more amount has already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner and according to the learned counsel, as per the certificate issued by his employer, for the period from May 2008 to February 2010, a sum of Rs.33,000/- has been recovered and remitted in the Family Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that on 30.5.2008, the Family Court has issued an order enhancing the maintenance allowance already awarded. However it is not disputed that, on the basis of the enhanced rate of maintenance allowance as ordered by the Family Court, a sum of Rs.11,000/- is due to the claimants. The figures mentioned above are subject to evidence to be adduced in the Family Court. 4. However the impugned proceedings is only a notice, whereby the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.27,500/-. Ofcourse, if the petitioner has got any objection, he is free to raise the same before the Family Court and it is then R.P.(F.C.)No.198 of 2010 3 for the Family Court to determine the amount, as the real arrears to be paid by the revision petitioner. In the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that without entering into the merits of the contention raised by the revision petitioner, this revision petition can be disposed of relegating the petitioner to approach the Family Court, after remitting the admitted arrear amount, within a stipulated time and with further direction to the Family Court to dispose of the execution petition after hearing the revision petitioner as well as the claimants. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to place his objection against the execution petition in question and also the contention with respect to the excess payment, made if any, which shall be considered by the Family Court on merit and fix the actual amount due from the revision petitioner towards the claimant after hearing the parties concerned. In the meanwhile the Family Court, Thiruvalla, is directed to keep in abeyance the coercive steps, if any taken, against the petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposits R.P.(F.C.)No.198 of 2010 4 half of the admitted arrear amount ie., Rs.5,500/- on 2.6.2010 and the remaining Rs.5,500/- within a fortnight from 2.6.2010. The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. ami/