IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 354 of 2009() -------------------------------- MC.246/2002 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONER (S): ----------------------- P.SURESH BABU, C. NO.5545, S/O. RAGHAVAN, CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.BINDU M.A.(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. NAISHA, W/O. SEKHARAN. 2. VISHNU 3. ANANTHU 4. NEELIMA. ( PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE REP.BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IS PETITIONER NAISHA) BY ADV. MR.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.354 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in CMP.(Ex.)Nos.245/2008 and 193/2009. Both these petitions were moved by the wife and the minor children for realisation of maintenance amount. As per CMP.No.245/2008 an amount of Rs.36,600/= was due for 12 months. Since no amount was paid, the husband was directed to undergo imprisonment for six months. In the other CMP, there was 8 months' default and the court ordered him to undergo S.I for 4 months. Ever from the date of the order, the husband is not in the habit of paying any amount as maintenance to the wife and children and it appears that he is happy to go to jail. He has sent a petition from jail which is converted as RPFC. Earlier he moved an application through a lawyer which was numbered as RPFC 95/2008. There also it was for a period of 46 months, and no amount was paid and therefore he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 35 months for : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.354 OF 2009 different periods. 2. In the revision, this Court attempted to ascertain willingness of the husband to transfer the immovable property in the name of the minor children and mother and he was not prepared to do so. This Court observed that the petitioner is adamantly refusing to make the payment. A property which was in his name has been transferred to the name of the children voluntarily for the purpose of keeping it away from the possible attachment in execution of the order. So, the conduct of the husband is highlighted by the court obviously for the reason that during the pendency of the said revision, the court directed the counsel to ascertain from the party whether he is willing to execute the document in favour of the minor children. He was not prepared and he never wanted the wife to get any amount and that was his attitude. It was in the circumstance that I am of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the order. 3. Now there is subsequent arrears. I find that the court below has shown leniency for the reason that for each month's default, the court can impose imprisonment up to a : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.354 OF 2009 period of one month. For 12 months default, the court has ordered 6 months and for 8 months' non-payment, only 4 months' imprisonment are given which means a lenient view had been taken. 4. In the light of the said fact and the conduct of the husband in not willing to transfer any property or to make any payment to the wife and children, it will be misplaced sympathy, if further reduction is granted. It is unfortunate that he has to be in jail but it is on account of his own conduct. Therefore the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.354 OF 2009