IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 220 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2008 IN CMP.1091/2006, 1140/06 & 139/07 IN of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ABOOBACKER, S/O.MUHAMMED, KURUPPATH VEEDU, CHUNDAMPETTA.P.O., NATTIYAMANGLAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. C. NO.6725, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR. BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASOKAN (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KADHEEJA, D/O.KADAR, MADAYIL VEEDU, PALOLIKULAMBU, VILAYUR AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. PATHYIMATH MURSHEEDA, MINOR, 9 YEARS, D/O. KADHEEJA. 3. FATHIMATH MUBARASHEEDA, MINOR 9 YEARS, D/O.KADHEEJA. ( 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.SUDHEESH.A. FOR R1 SMT.C.V.BINDU FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC)No.220 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of the common order passed by learned Judge of the Family Court, Palakkad in C.M.P.No.1091 of 2006, 1140 of 2006 and 139 of 2007 under Section 128 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in enforcement of an order of maintenance passed in favour of respondents, wife and two children in M.C.No.148 of 2002. Total amount due on said petitions was Rs.46,500/- out of which petitioner paid Rs.6,500/-. Balance payable was Rs.40,000/-. 2. Distress warrant issued to the petitioner for recovery of the amount was unsuccessful. Accordingly warrant was issued to the petitioner and he was arrested and produced before the learned Judge. As the balance amount due was not paid, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for total of twenty (20) months. Learned counsel for petitioner appointed on State Brief contended that petitioner is unable to pay the amount. 3. While considering the question of leniency the plight of the respondents who are not being provided with allowance for their bare maintenance cannot be forgotten. Undue leniency would amount to misplaced sympathy. However taking into account the fact that petitioner is undergoing RP(FC) No.220/2009 2 imprisonment from 26.3.2008 onwards I am persuaded to think that imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) months is sufficient in the ends of justice. Order under challenge is modified accordingly. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the extent that the period of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is modified as a total of fifteen (15) months. The court below shall issue modified warrant to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyoor forthwith. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks