IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 6 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/10/2009 IN CMP 1212/2008 IN CMP.2240/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER -------------------- MUTHUMANI, S/O.KRISHNAN,C.NO.7765, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT,MINI ELIZABETH GEORGE(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F) C.No.6 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11 th day of March, 2010 ORDER In this revision preferred from the Central Prison, Viyyur the revision petitioner who was the counter petitioner in M.C.No.89/2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Mannarkkad challenges the common order dated 8.10.2009 passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in CMP Nos.2240 of 2006 and 1212 of 2008 in M.C.No.89 of 2002. 2. I heard Advocate Smt.Mini E.G the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief and perused the records. 3. As per the final order dated 27.8.2005 in M.C.No.89/2002 the revision petitioner was directed to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C at the rate of Rs.600/- and Rs.400/- per month in favour of his wife and minor daughter respectively from the date of the petition(that is 26.10.2002). CMP No.2240/2006 was filed on 14.6.2006 claiming arrears for 43 months from 26.10.2002 ( i.e. from the date of the petition till 22.5.2006). First Execution Petition was filed on 14.6.2006 within one year from the date of Crl.R.P. No. 3014 of 2009 2 the final order dated 27.8.2005. Since the execution petition was filed within one year of the final order and the second CMP filed claiming arrears for 43 months amounting to Rs.43,000/- was not barred by limitation in the light of the decision Narayanan v. State of Kerala ( 2008(1) KLT 852). The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no distress warrant was issued and the order sentencing the revision petitioner to simple imprisonment was therefore not sustainable. 4. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submission. The revision petitioner was residing at Coimbatore. A distress warrant was issued and the Tamil Nadu police did not return the distress warrant after execution. Since the distress warrant became impracticable, the applicants were directed to file a statement regarding the property, if any, of the revision petitioner. The wife of the petitioner in her statement filed on 18.1.2008 stated that the petitioner does not have any Crl.R.P. No. 3014 of 2009 3 movable or immovable property. Thereafter, non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner, The Tamil Nadu police did not co-operate with the court below in executing the arrest warrant. When the court below took steps to prosecute the Station House Officer, the revision petitioner was arrested and produced before the Family Court. Since the steps under Section 421 Cr.P.C was found impracticable, the court below ordered imprisonment of the revision petitioner for the non-payment of the arrears of 43 months amounting to Rs.43,000/-. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the common order dated 8.10.2009, This revision is according dismissed. Dated this the 11 th day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj Communicate a copy of this order to the revision petitioner (C.No.7765) through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Viyyur.