IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 RPFC.No. 35 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/12/2009 IN MP.611/09 IN MC.30/2008 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMEDALI, S/O. ABOOBAKER, C.NO.7881, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR. BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V.ALAPPATT (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. FATHIMA, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. PANIKKAVEETTIL MUHAMMED, THRIPRAYAR DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 3. MUBEENA, AGED 13 YEARS, MINOR STUDENT, REP. BY MOTHER R2. 4. MUHASEENA, AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR STUDENT, REP. BY MOTHER R2. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VENUGOPAL. M.R. R2 TO R4 BY ADVS. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR, SMT.MOLLY KOSHY. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 35 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 27th Day of July 2010 ORDER This Revision Petition is preferred from the Jail, by the revision petitioner who is undergoing imprisonment in pursuance of an order dated 8.12.2009 of the Family court , Thrissur in Crl.M.P.611/2009 in M.C. No.30/2008. 2. The petitioners in the above petition, initially approached the family court, Thrissur, by filing M.C.No.30/2008 claiming maintenance and accordingly, the Family court allowed the said Petition and as such an amount of Rs.19200/- was due from the revision petitioner to the petitioners in the M.C who are none other than his wife and children. The revision petitioner has defaulted in paying the maintenance amount and hence, the Family court sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 12 months or till payment of the said amount. Consequently, he was sent to the central RPFC 35/10 -:2:- Prison , Viyyoor, from where he preferred this Crl.R.P. 3. As this revision petition is filed from Jail, as directed by this Court, the registry has appointed a counsel as State Brief and thus I heard Sri Unnikrishnan V.Alappatt, the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the claimants, who are the respondents, and also his previous wife are residing together under the same roof and if the revision petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, he may be able to discharge his liability of paying the maintenance ordered by the court below. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that she has no objection in releasing the revision petitioner from the jail. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the view that this R.P.(F.C) can be disposed of releasing the revision petitioner from the jail who RPFC 35/10 -:3:- is undergoing imprisonment from 8.12.2009, so as to enable him to raise money to meet his liability which arose out of the order in Crl.M.P. No.611/2009 in M.C.No.30/2008. In the result, this Revision Petition (F.C) is disposed of setting aside the order dated 8.12.2009 in M.P. No. 611/2009 in M.C.No.30/2008. Accordingly the registry is directed to sent the gist of the this order to the Central Prison, Viyyur, for their further action in the matter. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-