IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 86 of 2010() --------------------- MC.253/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT ----------- K.T.EBRAHIM,C.NO.7457, S/O.KADARI HAJI, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MYMUNATH,D/O.MAMUNNI, VELUTHATHODI, AMBALATHUMPADI HOUSE, P.O.KILUPARAMBU, ARIKKODU, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. AFIHA JABIN (MINOR), (MINOR RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ....................................................... R.P. (F.C.) No. 86 of 2010 ..................................................... Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 ORDER In this Revision filed from the Central Prison, Kannur, the revision petitioner who is the husband of one Mymoonath and father of Afeeha Jabin challenges the order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in C.M.P. No.1537 of 2008 in M.C. No. 253 of 2006 . The said M.C. was filed by the wife and minor son of the revision petitioner seeking maintenance under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. As per the ex parte order dated 13-09-2006, the Family Court noticing that the revision petitioner had deserted his wife and minor son who have no means of income or source of livelihood held that the revision petitioner has landed properties and was employed abroad with a salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month and, accordingly, ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- to the minor child from the date of petition R.P. (F.C.) No. 86 of 2010 -:2:- namely 8-2-2006. 2. I heard Adv. Smt. Bindhu, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief. The respondents who have been served have chosen to remain ex parte. The order dated 3-7-2009 in C.M.P. No.1537 of 2008 in M.C. No. 253 of 2006 reads as follows:- “Petition filed under Section 128 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner and respondent present. No payment. No explanation for non-payment of Rs. 63,000/- to wife and daughter. 18 months arrears each to them is in arrears. Petitioner insists that respondent be sent to jail. Respondent is ordered to Central Jail, Kannur for imprisonment for 15 months”. 3. I am inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioner that the Family Court has not before ordering imprisonment of the revision petitioner explored the possibility of proceeding against the immovable properties of the revision petitioner in view of Summary No. 5 in paragraph 26 of T.K.Ramakrishnan v. Subhadra - 2009 (1) KLY 813. Yet another contention raised is that the application was barred by R.P. (F.C.) No. 86 of 2010 -:3:- limitation as held in 2001 (3) KLT 451 - Kuttappan v. Vijayan. The question of limitation also does not appear to have engaged the attention of the Family Court while passing the impugned order . The decision in Narayanan v. State of Kerala – 2008 (1) KLT 852 is also relevant in this connection. Accordingly, the order in C.M.P. No.1537 of 2008 in M.C. No. 253 of 2006 is set aside and the application shall be disposed of afresh in the light of the decisions referred to herein above. 4. In the result, this Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 3-7-2009 in C.M.P. No.1537 of 2008 in M.C. No. 253 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram, is set aside. The Revision Petitioner shall be released from custody forthwith unless his continued detention is found necessary in connection with any other case against him. Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge Registry to communicate this order immediately to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur. R.P. (F.C.) No. 86 of 2010 -:4:-