IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 219 of 2009() ---------------------- MC NO.583/1995 & MC.170/2001 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ----------------------------- VIJAYAN,S/O.RAMANKUTTY, PAPPALAVAYAL,P.O.CHUDEL, WAYANAD DIST. C.NO.5720, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SANEER P.M. (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. JANAKI, D/O.CHOYI, MANIYAMBRAKANDY HOUSE, P.O. PAVANDOOR, NANMANDA, KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. AJAYESH, S/O.VIJAYAN, MINOR REP. BY 1ST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC)No.219 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of the separate orders passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in petitions preferred by the respondents seeking enforcement of an order of maintenance, under Section 125(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. As submitted by learned counsel on both sides, maintenance was ordered in favour of the respondents, in M.C.No.582 of 1995. Maintenance allowance was enhanced later as per order in M.C.No.170 of 2001. Going by the petitions filed by respondents, they are claiming maintenance for various periods from the year 2001 onwards. Distress warrant was issued to the petitioner but without any result. Petitioner was arrested and produced before the learned Sessions Judge. Since he did not pay th maintenance allowance, he was directed to be imprisoned for a total of 72 months on the separate petitions preferred by respondents. That order is under challenge in this revision. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner appointed on State Brief submitted that there was an agreement between petitioner and respondent No.1 on 17.5.1997 as per which the former paid Rs.25,000/- to the latter and that the same was not taken into account by the court below. It is also submitted that the period of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is excessive. RP(FC) No.219/2009 2 3. Along with petition sent by the petitioner from jail, he has appended a photocopy of an agreement allegedly executed by respondent No.1 on 16.5.1997. I am unable to accept that agreement in this proceeding for the reason that even as conceded by the petitioner, maintenance allowance was enhanced in M.C.No.170 of 2001 ie., much after the alleged agreement but that agreement was not produced in the court below. 4. On going through the details of petitions preferred by respondents, it is seen that claim for maintenance allowance is made for a period of 12 months preceding the filing of the respective petitions. Therefore, question of limitation does not arise. 5. In the memorandum of revision, petitioner states that he is not able to raise the entire amount. It is stated that he has no job or occupation. Fact remained that distress warrant issued for realisation of the amount did not yield result. That means, petitioner has no property worth mentioning. In these circumstances, I am inclined to think that half of the period of imprisonment will be sufficient in the ends of justice. RP(FC) No.219/2009 3 Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the extent that the period of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is modified as one half of the sentence awarded by the court below. The court below shall issue modified warrant to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur forthwith. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks