IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRRP.No. 2489 of 2011 ( ) ====================== CRA.148/2011 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CMP.1051/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- I,N. PARAVUR REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS =============================================== 1. ABOO NAUSHAD @ ANWAR, S/O.ABOOBACKER AGED 40 YEARS, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE THATHAPILLY, KIZHAKKEPRAM KARA KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ABBOBACKER, S/O.KUNJUMARAKKAR, AGED 75 YEARS, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE THATHAPILLY KIZHHAKKEPRAM KARA KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. NABEESA, W/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 70 YEARS, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THATHAPILLY KIZHHAKKEPRAM KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE N.PARAVUR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & STATE =============================================== 1. MISLY, D/O.PAREETH PILLAI, PANAYAPILLY HOUSE VIDAKUZHA, THAYIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.MUJEEB REHIMAN SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss CRRP. NO.2489/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN CMP. 1050/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATES COURT, N. PARAVUR. ANNEXURE B:- COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION NO.1042/2011 AND THE MEMORANDUM OF CRL. APPEAL 148/2011 FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2489 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the respondents in M.C.No.1051/10 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, North Parur, a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'} which commenced on a petition filed by the 1st respondent, who is none other than the wife of the first revision petitioner. The other two revision petitioners are the parents of the first revision petitioner. 2. In the above proceedings, the 1st respondent/petitioner applied for an order of interim maintenance. The magistrate passed an order dated 5.6.2010 allowing her interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- from the Crl.R.P.No.2489 of 2011 :: 2 :: 1st respondent. A prohibitory order against the respondents not to interfere with her peaceful possession in the shared house was also granted. The order of the magistrate was challenged by the respondents, but, belatedly with a petition for condoning the delay of 228 days in preferring an appeal. Not being satisfied with the cause shown for condoning the delay, the application thereof was turned down by the Sessions Judge with the result that the appeal was also rejected. Challenge in the revision is against the awarding of interim maintenance as it now stands affirmed by the rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioners. 3. Though notice was ordered service could not be effected on the 1st respondent so Crl.R.P.No.2489 of 2011 :: 3 :: far. Pursuant to directions issued by this court, notice was issued on the counsel appearing before the magistrate court, and a memo evidencing such service has been presented before this court. I am satisfied that proper service has been effected on the 1st respondent. 4. The revision coming up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that challenge is confined to the order awarding maintenance and what the revision petitioners seek is only some time to pay the sum fixed. A portion of the amount awarded as interim maintenance which has fell into arrears has already been remitted before the court is the submission of the counsel. The balance amount due, according Crl.R.P.No.2489 of 2011 :: 4 :: to the counsel, comes to Rs.44,000/-. A short time for remitting the payment due with a direction to the court below for disposal of the case expeditiously the revision may be disposed of, is the submission of the counsel. 5. Considering the submissions made, I find, the following orders can be passed. 1st petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the arrears of interim maintenance due to the 1st respondent within a period of four weeks from today. If such deposit is made within the time limit fixed, the magistrate shall grant him a further period of three weeks to deposit whatever outstanding amount due towards the arrears of interim maintenance awarded. If the initial deposit, as indicated above, is not made within the time, the Crl.R.P.No.2489 of 2011 :: 5 :: magistrate shall take appropriate steps for realisation of the amount from the 1st petitioner, as provided by law. 6. The case is now ripe for trial is the submission of the counsel. If the case is ripe for trial, the magistrate shall expedite the proceedings and dispose of the case at the earliest, after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.