IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1874 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CRRP.22/2002 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA MC. NO.56/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------- E.R. GOPI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, IRUVELIL HOUSE, CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND NON PARTY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SULOCHANA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.KARUNAKARAN, THYVEETTIL, THYKKAL P.O., KADAKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, 688 524. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. MANU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Crl.MC.No. 1874 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE PETITION IN M.C. NO.56/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, CHERTHALA. ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF THE COUNTER IN ANNEXURE-A. ANNEXURE-C: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN M.C.NO.56/98. ANNEXURE-D: COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/03/2002 PASSED IN M.C. NO.56/98 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, CHERTHALA. ANNEXURE-E: COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/04/2004 PASSED IN CRL.R.P. NO.22/2002. ANNEXURE-F: COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR SALE DATED 23/05/2011. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1874 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of June, 2011 ORDER Respondent in M.C.No.56 of 1998 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala is the petitioner, he having suffered an order for payment of maintenance @Rs.500/- per month from 26.08.1998 onwards to his wife and failed in his attempt in the revisional Court to get that order reversed. Now, the prayer is to invoke Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. First respondent claimed that petitioner demanded more ornaments and money from her, harassed her by saying that she is elder to the petitioner and while so, demanded a further sum of `.20,000/- from her parents. On 29.05.1987 as per instruction of petitioner, his sister and aunt put her at her paternal home. Thereafter petitioner refused, neglected and failed to maintain her or take her back. Hence she claimed maintenance from petitioner. Petitioner denied all allegations and contended that attempt of first respondent is to cover up her physical deformity which made her unfit for matrimonial life. He denied that he is a Poojari earning `.4,000/- per month and has 15 cents as claimed by the first respondent. Before the learned Crl.M.C.No.1874 of 2011 -: 2 :- Magistrate the first respondent gave evidence as PW1. Petitioner did not mount the witness box. Accepting the case of first respondent, maintenance was awarded as aforesaid. That has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha in Crl.R.P.No.22 of 2002. Learned counsel contends that there is absolutely no material to show that first respondent had sufficient reason to live apart and claim maintenance. It is also contended that petitioner did not get opportunity to adduce evidence. 3. So far as the alleged desertion, failure and neglect to maintain are concerned there is the evidence of the first respondent which was accepted by the court below. Even the unsubstantiated allegation of physical deformity of the first respondent which according to the petitioner made her unfit for matrimonial life is sufficient ground for her to live apart. The contention that petitioner did not get opportunity to adduce evidence also cannot be sustained. If petitioner has not adduced evidence, it is at his risk. There is no reason to interfere, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-