IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 RPFC.No. 361 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2009 IN CMP 301/08 IN MC.175/2006 of FC, PALAKKAD .................... (S): APPELLANT. ------------------------------ L.VASU,C.NO.7601,, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOY(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT. -------------------------- 1. VISHNURAJ AGED 16 YEARS S/O. VASU, CHOLOTTIL VENGASSERY, AMBALAPPARA, PALAKKAD. 2. VINOD AGED 12 YEARS S/O. VASU -DO-DO- THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jma P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C)No.361 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner was the counter petitioner in C.M.P.No.301 of 2008 in M.C.No.175 of 2006, a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. The respondents, two sons of the revision petitioner are the petitioners before the lower court. As per order in M.C.No.175 of 2006, the revision petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to each of the respondents. For realization of the amount due for one year, the above petition was preferred before the lower court. The revision petitioner didn't respond to the notice. Distress warrant issued. The same was returned with the report that no property was available to distrain. It was also reported that the revision petitioner didn’t own any property. In the above circumstance, warrant was issued and the revision petitioner was apprehended. He didn’t care to pay the maintenance amount. In that circumstance, the court below sentenced the revision petitioner to simple imprisonment for one year or till the payment of Rs.14,400/-, which was due. R.P.(F.C)No.361 of 2009 2 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above sentence, this revision petition was preferred through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyoor. 3. As he was not represented by a lawyer, Advocate Sri.Praveen K.Joy was engaged as State Brief to prosecute the revision petitioner. Having gone through the order impugned and hearing the learned counsel I find little merit in the revision petition. There is willful neglect on the side of the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents who are his sons. The revision petitioner has no good excuse. He deserves no leniency. The lower court is absolutely right in awarding the sentence impugned. This revision petition is devoid of merit. Hence it is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.