IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 954 of 2008() ------------------------ MC.186/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------------------ BIJOY, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN KUTTIPPADY VEEDU, PERINGOTTUKURISSY AMSOM ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR SMT.AMBILI.G. RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. (M.C.NO.186 OF 2006 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT PALAKKAD) 2. SMT. U.K.SHEENA, D/O.UNNIKRISHNAN KENAMPULLI, KACHERIMEDU, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 954 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the former husband of the 2nd respondent herein, is the counter petitioner in Annexure-1 M.C. No. 186/2006 filed by the 2nd respondent before the Family Court, Palakkad claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks to quash the above proceedings on the ground that the same amounts to abuse of the process of court. The contention of the revision petitioner is that altogether the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had cohabitation only for 100 days and it was the 2nd respondent herein who had withdrawn from the society of the petitioner and had deserted him as was found by the Family Court in the Annexure-5 order dated 25.08.2006 in O.P. No. 609 of 2006 while granting a decree of divorce to the revision petitioner. According to the petitioner, such a woman is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner has a further contention that the Family Court, Palakkad where Annexure-1 application has been registered as M.C. No. 186/2006, does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application. 2. The above contentions are the defences available to the petitioner while contesting M.C. No. 186/2006. The petitioner who claims to have filed his counter to the said M.C, will have to prosecute CRL.M.C.NO. 954/2008 : 2: his defences before that court. The application for interim maintenance cannot be quashed on the ground that it amounts to abuse of the process of court. 3. The further grievance which is focused before me is that the petitioner who is a resident of Aluva finds it difficult to go all the way to Palakkad on all the dates of postings of the said M.C to contest the maintenance application. The petitioner need not personally appear before the Family Court unless it is inevitable at any stage of the trial. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move the Family Court, Palakkad for personal exemption. In case the petitioner files an application for personal exemption, I am sure that the Family Court will allow the same and will insist on his personal appearance only when it is inevitable during any stage of the trial. The petitioner can be permitted to be represented through his counsel. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.M.C.NO. 954/2008 : 3: