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. 27 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/03/2008 IN CMP 918/04 IN MC.365/2002 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- SANTHOSH, S/O.VELLAN, PARAPPANGHATTUTHAZHE HOUSE, VENGERI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.VENGERI, KOZHIKODE, CHEVAYOOR BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR R CHERTHALA (SB) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PUSHPA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVAN, ARIYILMEETHAL HOUSE, ATHOLI AMSOM, KOLAKKAD DESOM, P.O.KOLAKKAD, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. MANASA, AGED 4 YEARS (MINOR) (REPRESENTED BY IST PETITIONER MOTHER AS GUARDIAN), ATHOLI. ADV. SMT.V.SREEJA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P(F.C).27 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of June 2009 ORDER Heard counsel on both sides. 2. This revision is in challenge of separate orders passed by learned Judge of Family Court, Kozhikode in Crl.M.P.Nos.1150/03, 918/04, 896/05, 825/06 and 1035/07. These petitions are filed by respondents-wife and daughter seeking enforcement of the order of maintenance passed in their favour in M.C No.325/02. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner after going through the records of the courts below has submitted that before ordering imprisonment distress warrant was issued for realization of the amount but it was not fruitful. There is no contention that the petitions claiming maintenance are for a period beyond 12 months preceding the filing of the petitions. Hence question of limitation does not arise. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, she is a minor (represented by respondent No.1, her mother) and hence the plea of limitation is not available against her. It is also seen that it was when Crl.M.P.No.1150/03 was pending that subsequent petitions for enforcement of the order were filed. Hence also question of limitation does not arise. R.P(F.C).No.27/09 2 4. Contention raised in the memorandum of revision concerning liability of petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents do not arise for consideration at this stage. Petitioner states that he is undergoing imprisonment since long. Learned counsel requested that leniency may be shown to the petitioner. 5. As per Sec.125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) imprisonment that may be awarded for non-payment may extend to one month. The Code does not prescribe any minimum imprisonment for default. As per the impugned orders petitioner has to undergo imprisonment for a total period of five years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that imprisonment for a period of six months each on each petition, to run consecutively, is sufficient in the ends of justice. 6. Resultantly, this revision is allowed to the extent that imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is modified as six months each on each of the petitions, to run consecutively. Court below shall issue modified warrant to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur immediately. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/ R.P(F.C).No.27/09 3