IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 389 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5 /10 /2009 IN CMP 1013/2008 IN MC.96/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PADMANABHAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, (NOW UNDER GOING SENTENCE AT VIYOOR CENTRAL KAIL) PERMANENT RESIDENT OF CHANDANASSERY MADAM,KADAMBUR, OTTAPALAM,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. ATHEENA ,AGED 33 YEARS D/O.MUKUNDAN MENON, ATHEENIYAM VEEDU ONGALOOR DESOM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RWITHIK ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- R.P.F.C NO. 389 OF 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent, who filed a petition as M.C.No.96/06 before the Family Court, Palakkad and obtained an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the revision petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- with effect from 12.7.05. Alleging that the revision petitioner committed default in complying with the order, the 1st respondent filed two petitions as CMP.No.1013/08 and 1997/08. By a common order dated 5.10.09, having found that the revision petitioner failed to pay maintenance for a period of forty months, sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 30 months, or till the payment of Rs.60,000/-. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order this revision petition was filed. At the time of admitting the revision petition, an interim stay was granted on condition that the revision petitioner shall deposit Rs.30,000/- before the trial court and it is submitted that the revision petitioner had complied with the order. On behalf of the revision petitioner the learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner is R.P.F.C NO. 389 OF 2009 2 prepared to comply with the order to pay maintenance for which he sought some time. In the above circumstance, the revision petition is allowed. While setting aside the order impugned the matter is remitted back to the lower court for fresh disposal, preferably before the summer recess. The 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited by the revision petitioner. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE mns