IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 121 of 2005() ---------------------- CMP.9/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- REGHUVARAN, S.K.BUILDING, POCHADIVILA VEEDU, KOCHALUMMOODU, CHITHARA MURI, CHITHARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAVITHRI, POOCHADIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHITHARA MURI, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 2. REENA, D/O.SAVITHRI OF DO. DO. 3. UNNY, S/O. SAVITHRI OF DO. DO. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R4 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.13312/2005 IN RP(FC) NO.121/2005 DISMISSED 17/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.121 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kottarakkara in CMP.No.9/2005. By the said order, the court directed the revision petitioner to be arrested and detained in jail for one month. It is challenging that order, the revision petitioner has come up before this Court. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that he has moved a suit for declaration that the lady is not his wife and the children are not his. It was turned down by the trial court and the matter is pending consideration before this Court in appeal. Secondly it is contended that without re coursing to the remedies available under Section 421 of Cr.P.C, it may not be correct to arrest and send him to jail. The family court has not considered these points. If appeal is pending and execution of the order is stayed by the appellate court, nothing could be done at this stage for executing the same. : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.121 OF 2005 If there is no stay order, certainly the petitioners in the MC are entitled to relief. But even in such cases, a contention is raised to the effect that unless methods known to law under Section 421 of Cr.P.C is taken to recover it by proceeding against the property, it may not be proper to arrest and send him to jail. It is also a contention which is worth consideration. 3. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the family court with a direction to permit the revision petitioner to appear before that court and raise his objections. The court can decide the same after hearing both sides and then proceed in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the family court on 19.4.2010. If the wife does not appear on that day, let a notice be issued to her for appearance and till a final decision is taken in the matter, let the revision petitioner be not arrested and send to jail. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.121 OF 2005 : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.121 OF 2005