IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 4375 of 2006(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALAKRISHNAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY NO.12 ARIYUNNISSERI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AMMINI, ATTAKULATHU PADINJAREKARA THEKKETHIL, PANNIVIZHAMURI, ADOOR. 2. ANOOP, AGED 13 YERS, (MINOR) PADINJAREKARA THEKKETHIL, PANNIVIZHAMURI, ADOOR. (MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.M.SATHEESH FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION NO.686/2005 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2005 IN CMP NO.686/2005 IN MC NO.5/1993 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.A.P.SREEKUMAR EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN MC NO.238/2005 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4375 of 2006 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner has suffered an order for payment of maintenance to the respondents in M.C.No.5 of 1993 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor. Since he did not pay the amount due, warrants were issued against him. According to the petitioner, on account of illness and other reasons he was not able to pay the amount. Petitioner says that he wants to file a petition for alteration of maintenance under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) before the Family Court, Thiruvalla but on account of pendency of warrants he is unable to do so. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner had in fact filed a petition under Section 127 of the Code in the Family Court, Thiruvalla. According to the learned counsel, that petition is not being considered since there are warrants pending against the petitioner. But the counsel did not point out any provision of law which prohibits the petitioner from filing such a petition if warrant is pending. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to issue direction to WP(C) No.4375/2006 2 the court concerned to entertain the petition if it is already filed. If any such petition is filed, the court concerned will deal with the petition as provided under law. Writ Petition therefore, is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks