IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3015 of 2008() ------------------------------------ MC.109/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- JAYANADHAN, S/O. CHAMI, KOTHARAMPATTA, MALAMCHITTY, KUTHANUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SREENATH (MINOR), PANNICODE, KONGOD AMSOM DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN SUKUMARAN GRANDFATHER AGED 76. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SRI.A.V.RAVI SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------------ CRL.M.C NO. 3015 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 04th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the respondent in M.C.109/2007 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The 1st respondent herein filed the above petition before the Family Court seeking an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner who is none other than the father of the first respondent. The petitioner remained exparte. Hence, after recording the evidence of the first respondent, as against the claim for a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the first respondent as per Annexure-I order. Though the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the exparte order, that was dismissed as CRL.M.C NO. 3015 of 2008 2 evidenced by Annexure-II order which reads as follows. “Batta not paid. C.M.P. closed. Petitioner if interested may apply for revival of execution”. It appears that last sentence in Annexure-II order is a mistake. However, it is submitted that the petitioner had filed petition for revival of the petition to set aside the exparte order. Irrespective of that the first respondent moved for execution. There upon the petitioner filed this petition stating that pending proceedings for setting aside the exparte order, the execution proceedings were initiated and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. I find no merit in this petition. Proceedings for execution of an order of maintenance is no way illegal or opposed to law so as to interfere under CRL.M.C NO. 3015 of 2008 3 Section 482 Cr.PC. In the event, the petitioner filed a fresh petition for setting aside the exparte order or a petition for revival, it is for the petitioner to seek stay of the execution of the order in M.C.No. 109/2007 pending disposal of the petition for setting aside the exparte order and not by this petition. This petition is misconceived and I find no reason to interfere with the execution proceedings in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is dismissed. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. rkc