IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1099 of 2008() ------------------------------------ M.C. NO.136/2002 OF TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, HOSDURG. .......... PETITIONER(S): 2ND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- NAVANEETH (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, USHUS S., PANCHAVADI HOUSE, PALAPPURAM P.O., VIA. OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.D. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.K.G.DAMODARAN NAIR, CHERUKARA HOUSE, PUTHARIYADUKKAM, PEROLE VILLAGE, P.O. PUTHARIYADUKKAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C NO. 1099 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of January, 2011 ORDER The petitioner is the second petitioner in M.C.No.136/02 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg. It is a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the 2nd respondent who is none other than the father of the petitioner. Pending the proceedings the matter was settled between the parties. They approached the Thaluk Legal Service Committee, Hosdurg. Accordingly, the matter was referred to Lok Adalath and settling the dispute Annexure-1 order was obtained. By Annexure-1 order the 2nd respondent was directed to pay monthly maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-. This petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order of CRL.M.C NO. 1099 of 2008 2 transfer of execution of Annexure-1 order to the Family Court, Palakkad. Though more than five years elapsed, the petitioner has not so far filed any petition for execution of Annexure-1 order. So there does not arise the question of transfer of execution of petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that to his knowledge the petitioner along with his mother joined the 2nd respondent and has been residing together. However, it remains a fact that the petitioner has not chosen to file any petition for execution of Annexure-1 order. In the above circumstance, no transfer of the execution petition arises and this petition is misconceived. Therefore this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move for the execution of Annexure-1 order. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. rkc