IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10236 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN CMP.151/2008 IN MC.171/2002 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- V. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PARAPACHAN VILA MUDUBIL VEEDU, KALADI, KARAMANA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHANDRIKA, D/O. CHINDAMANI, T.C 46/932, S.M. LACK, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIVYA KRISHNAN, (MINOR), RESIDING AT -DO- REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT CHANDRIKA, MOTHER OF RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. 3. DEEPA KRISHNAN, (MINOR), RESIDING AT -DO- REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT CHANDRIKA, MOTHER OF RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 10236 of 2009-R ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has suffered an order under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem to his wife and Rs.500/- per mensem each to his two minor children (total Rs.1,750/-). The petitioner is a police officer working in a Special Armed Police Camp, Trivandrum. He did not pay the amounts due under the order obliging the wife and children to seek execution of the order of maintenance. Ext.P4 application is now said to be pending. An amount of Rs.21,000/- is claimed. While the matter is pending before the Family Court, an amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Family Court by order dated 18/11/08 directed that the salary be attached at the rate W.P.(c) No. 10236 of 2009-R -: 2 :- of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. Consequent directions were issued in the form of Ext.P6 to the employer of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has now come before this Court complaining that it was not necessary to direct recovery of a total amount of Rs.33,700/- under Ext.P6. Only an amount of Rs.21,000/- is due as claimed in Ext.P4 and thereafter an amount of Rs.1,000/- has been paid also. In these circumstances, it was not necessary to issue a direction as shown under Ext.P6. This, in short, is the contention. 3. This writ petition was admitted. The petitioner was granted an interim stay on condition that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is deposited. It is submitted that the said amount has already been deposited. 4. Going by the submissions of the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.10,000/- remains to be paid. The petitioner submits that he is willing to pay if some further time is given. We have no hesitation to agree that the petitioner must be directed to pay the entire amount due and if such amount is paid, the Family Court shall forthwith recall the order of attachment of property. It is for the petitioner to appear before the Family Court and satisfy the Family Court that the entire amounts have been paid. Recovery is directed only at the rate of Rs.3,000/- W.P.(c) No. 10236 of 2009-R -: 3 :- per mensem and at any time if the petitioner feels that the entire outstanding liability has been discharged, he can move the Family Court to recall Ext.P6 order. No further directions appear to be necessary. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. However, it is directed that the interim stay shall continue to remain in force till 30/4/09 before which the petitioner can move the Family Court to recall Ext.P6 order, after discharging the entire liability. SD/- R. BASANT (Judge) SD/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(c) No. 10236 of 2009-R -: 4 :-