IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.NO. 253 OF 2009() ----------------------------------- CMP.1217/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------ MANU @ MANUTTAN, S/O.KOLAVAN, VAIKKATHUVALAPPIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKE COLONY, KOZHIKKARA DESOM, KAPPUR AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. ADV.AMINA BEEVI.K.A(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- KARTHIYANI, W/O.MANU @ MANUTTAN, VAIKKATHUVALAPPIL VEEDU, D.O.KORAN, KUNNATHERI PARAMBIL VEEDU, CHALISSERI AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO.253 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard counsel appearing on State brief and Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is in challenge of order on C.M.P. No.1217 of 2006 in M.C. No.65 of 2004 originally of the court of learned judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi and later transferred to the Family Court, Palakkad. As per order dated 25.6.2005 in M.C. No.65 of 2004 petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.1,600/- per month from 20.3.2004. Petition was filed in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate on 23.12.2005 for enforcement of the order for the period from 20.3.2004 onwards. That petition was transferred to the Family Court. Since respondent did not take steps for issue of distress warrant that petition was closed with liberty to seek its revival. Later respondent filed C.M.P. No.868 of 2008 for revival of C.M.P. No.1217 of 2006 which was closed for statistical purposes. C.M.P. No.1217 of 2006 was revived and distress warrant was issued for realisation of the amount due. It was reported that petitioner has no movable or immovable property in his name. Petitioner was brought before learned Judge of the Family Court. R.P(FC) No.253 of 2009 -: 2 :- Petitioner did not pay the arrears and hence he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 months. He is aggrieved and preferred this petition from jail. Learned counsel contends that if petitioner is given an opportunity he will pay the arrears. 3. Going though his petition it is seen that he has not offered to pay the arrears. Nobody has also come forward to execute a bond for him so that if he is released he will appear in the court below and pay the amount. Therefore request for release cannot be allowed. Petition for enforcement of the order is on time since it is filed within one year of the order dated 25.6.2005 whereby petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to respondent. On going through the petition and hearing counsel I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Revision is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv