IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 696 of 2011() ----------------------------------- MC.212/2008 of 212/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM. .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- GARY NARESH RAJAN,FOG, K.K.NAGAR, VIRUGAMBAKKOM, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SMT.K.B.SUBHAGAMANI SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERR & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RADHA RAJAN,FLAT NO.1,A.J.APARTMENTS, KAZHAKOOTTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 082. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KEARLA,ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.696 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011. ORDER Respondent in M.C.No.212 of 2008 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeks to quash proceeding against him on the ground that the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding initiated by respondent No.1, mother for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Contention of the petitioner is that since he is a permanent resident of Chennai, Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by his mother in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Moosa v. Lakshmanan (2004 (2) KLT 438). Petitioner was permitted to supplement his objection by taking up such a contention vide order on I.A.No.498 of 2010. In the meantime, on the application of respondent No.1 (I.A.No.306 of 2010) the Family Court ordered interim maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of `.15,000/- per month as per Annexure-1, order. Petitioner claims that he is unable to pay such amount and at any rate the court has passed the order without jurisdiction notwithstanding the contention raised by petitioner. It is also submitted that in the meantime respondent No.1 has filed Annexure-11, application to strike off the defence of petitioner on account of non-payment of the amount of interim maintenance. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel submitted in the light of the decision referred to supra, Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram had no jurisdiction to entertain the Crl.MC No.696/2011 2 petition. 2. Since an objection in that line is already raised before the Family Court, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the maintainability of the petition. There is no reason why this Court should quash proceeding invoking power under Section 482 of the Code. 3. So far as the order for interim maintenance is concerned, claim is made by respondent No.1, mother aged about 67 years. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I direct petitioner to pay to respondent No.1, without prejudice to his contention regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram `.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive thousand only) within a period of three weeks from this day. Resultantly this petition is disposed of directing the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to consider the plea of petitioner regarding lack of jurisdiction for that court to entertain M.C.No.212 of 2008 before considering Annexure-11, petition filed by respondent No.1 to strike off the defence of petitioner. However, I direct that without prejudice to the contention raised by petitioner regarding lack of jurisdiction he shall pay `.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive thousand only) to respondent No.1 within a period of three weeks from this day. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks