IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 RPFC.No. 46 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/08/2009, IN CMP.200/2008 IN MC.485/2004 of THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, C.NO.7624, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SREEVALSAN.V.(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.SREEVALSAN V., STATE BRIEF. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.)No.46 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 20.8.2009 in C.M.P.No.200/08 in M.C.No.485/04 of the Family Court, Malappuram, by which the revision petitioner is sent for imprisonment for 20 months, as there was default in paying the monthly maintenance amount ordered in favour of the 2nd claimant in M.C.No.485/04. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the husband of one Muneera and father of one Shiyala, the claimants in M.C.No.485/04 of the Family Court, Malappuram. The above M.C. was filed u/s.125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- each to the claimants. The trial court by an elaborate order in the above M.C. found that, the 1st claimant is not entitled to get separate maintenance from the respondent/husband but held that the 2nd respondent is entitled to get maintenance and accordingly directed the revision petitioner/respondent to pay R.P.(F.C.)No.46 of 2010 2 maintenance to the 2nd claimant, the daughter of the claimant, @ Rs.650/- per month from the date of the petition. The 1st claimant is authorised to receive the amount due to the 2nd claimant, the daughter. 3. From the records it appears that, aggrieved by the insufficiency of the amount ordered, the claimant preferred an appeal/revision before this court and this court enhanced the monthly maintenance amount and fixed the same as Rs.1,250/- per month. As the revision petitioner failed to pay the amount, the claimants approached the court below and thus finally by an order dated 20.8.2009 in C.M.P.No.200/08 in M.C.No.485/04, the revision petitioner is sent to Central Jail, Kannur, for imprisonment for 20 months. As per the impugned order, a sum of Rs.35,000/- is in arrears as on the date of the order. It is born out from the records that, the revision petitioner is an able bodied man and he is a driver by profession. There is no acceptable and valid reason for not complying with the direction issued by the Family Court, Malappuram. The claimant is none R.P.(F.C.)No.46 of 2010 3 other than the daughter of the revision petitioner. As long as the main order u/s.125 of Cr.P.C., as modified by this court, is in force and when there is no valid reason for not complying with the order, the petitioner is liable to pay the monthly maintenance as ordered by the court. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Family Court and as such the revision petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/