IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.NO. 71 OF 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/12/2008 IN CMP NOS.2311 OF 2006, 1180 AND 1200 OF 2007, FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ---------------------------- HASSAN, S/O. SYED, CONVICT NO.7255, CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. ADV.MANSOOR B.H (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. SUHARAM D/O. HAMZA, THORAKKATTIL NEERAMKUZHIYIL VETTATHUR ASMOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. ASMABI, MINOR 12 YEARS. 3. HARISS, MINOR, 10 YERS, (2 AND ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE 1ST RESPNDENT) 4. SATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK R4 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) No.71 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard both sides. 2. This revision is in challenge of order passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Palakkad in C.M.P. Nos.2311 of 2006 and 1180 and 1200 of 2007. These petitions are filed for enforcement of the order for maintenance in favour of wife and children of petitioner in M.C. No.74 of 1999. Learned Judge has referred to the details of the petitions in the impugned order and how the claim for realisation is not barred by limitation. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that impugned orders are passed without following the procedure laid down in Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel placed reliance on the decision in T.K. Ramakrishnan v. Subhadra (2009(1) KLT 813). It is submitted by counsel that petitioner met with an accident and is unable to earn. Counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner has three passports in his custody and if released, he is likely to abscond. 3. It is seen that substantial amounts are due to the respondents under the various petitions. It is also seen that distress F.P(FC) No.71 of 2009 -: 2 :- warrant was issued for realisation of the amount in arrears but the same was returned with the report that petitioner did not hold any property. According to learned counsel even the petition (in M.C. No.74 of 1999) filed by respondents say that petitioner owns landed property. But the report on the distress warrant issued is otherwise. It is seen that court below has followed the procedure before petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment. I do not find anything illegal or irregular in the order under challenge. Hence revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv