IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.No. 72 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN CMP 561/2007 IN MC.164/2006 of .................... (S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------- SIDDIQUE, S/O.USSAINAR,C.NO.7245, CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. ADV.A.ABDUL JALEEL(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. UMAIBA, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.SIDHIQUE, D/O.VARKI, PATTAKKAL VEEDU, VALIKKODE, MUTTIKULANGARA. 2. MINSIYA, AGED 14 YEARS, D/O./SIDHIQUE (REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ------------------------------------ R.P.(FC) 72 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of June 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2, wife and daughter were awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- and Rs.500/- respectively, per month from 23/03/05 onwards. As petitioner did not pay the amount respondents filed C.M.P.No.561/07 for enforcement of the order. They claimed a total sum of Rs.30,542/- by way of arrears of maintenance for 24 months and 13 days. Court below observed that the amount payable for the period from 22/03/05 to 21/03/07 is Rs.30,000/-. The order for payment of maintenance was passed on 31/10/06 and C.M.P.No.561/07, the first petition for enforcement of that order was filed on 03/04/07. Learned judge observed the application was filed in time and that no portion of the claim is barred by limitation. In this connection court below relied on the decision in Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2008 Kerala HC 196). Since petitioner did not comply with the order distress warrant was issued. But no amount could be realized. Hence non-bailable warrant was issued and petitioner was arrested. Now the prayer is that if the petitioner is released from jail and he is given some time he is prepared to deposit that amount. The order for payment of maintenance was passed on 31/10/06 and the petition for R.P(FC).No.72/2009 2 enforcement of that order was filed on 03/04/07. Petitioner had sufficient time to pay the amount. Hence the request for release from jail cannot be entertained. It is further submitted that petitioner will pay the amount in instalments. Having regard to the amount involved and the nature of the claim made by the petitioners in the court below (which is only for their maintenance), I am not inclined to allow that request as well. I do not find anything illegal or irrelevant in the order under challenge requiring interference. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/ R.P(FC).No.72/2009 3