IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 992 of 2004 ------------------------ CRMP.7772/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. CHAMMY, KURIKKAVIL HOUSE, YAKKARA, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN SMT.SUSAL A. CHINNAN RESPONDENTS: 1. DIVYA, MINOR, D/O. LATE JAYANTHI, PANANKARA PADATHUN VEEDU, KINAVALLUR PALAKKAD-678 615, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN/ GRANT MOTHER/P.V. RAHDA DO. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH FOR R1 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. NOB LE MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO. 992 of 2004 ======================= Dated this the 13th June 2008 ORDER The prayer stated in this petition is “to set aside Annexure-1 order dated 4.2004 and Annexure-4 order dated 4-11-2003 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad in view of Annexure-3 decree on the same subject”. Annexure-I order produced along with this petition is a copy of the order dated 24-9-1999 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad in the petition, M.C.No.66/1998, filed by petitioners 1 and 2 therein against the counter petitioner, who is the petitioner herein. The second petitioner in the M.C. referred to as Annexure-1 is the first respondent in this petition. In pursuance of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the 2nd petitioner in the M.C., who is the minor daughter of the petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P.No.1772/2001 to execute the order. The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the said petition and ordered to attach salary of the counter petitioner at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month for six months from 4-11-2003 as revealed from Annexure-4. On a perusal of that order, it is clear that no objection was filed by the counter petitioner and there was no representation from bar. The petitioner herein prays to set aside Annexure-4 order dated 4-11-2003. CRMC. 992/2004 -2- 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent. 3. On a perusal of the records produced before this Court as Annexures 1 to 4, it is revealed that M.C.29/91 was filed originally by the wife and the minor child of the petitioner herein for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and it was ordered on 18-7-2002. Subsequently as per Annexure-1 order , maintenance amount has been enhanced to Rs.500/- per month in favour of the child, who is the first respondent herein. The wife of the petitioner is no more. As per Annexure-III, it is revealed that O.S.No.546/2001 was filed by the wife and child of the petitioner herein for maintenance and as per decree dated 25-2-2003, it was ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month to the 2nd plaintiff therein. The 2nd plaintiff is none other than the first respondent in this petition. Annexure-4 is the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad in Crl.M.P.No.1772/2001 in which it is ordered to attach the salary of the petitioner herein at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month for six months. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent filed petition under Section 128 Cr.P.C.to attach the salary of the petitioner based on the decree of the Munsiff Court and also the Magistrate Court. That submission is incorrect even on the face of the record. Annexure-III is the copy of the decree of the Munsiff Court, Palakkad and Annexure-4 is the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and CRMC. 992/2004 -3- are under the Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure respectively. Both proceedings are independent which cannot be clubbed together as represented by the petitioner's counsel and on that ground the prayer in this petition to set side Annexure-4 cannot be allowed. The first respondent herein who is the minor at that time is entitled to represent by the grand mother who is the natural guardian appointed by the competent court to proceed against the petitioner. Annexure-4 order was passed in pursuance of Annexure-1 order by the competent court. Hence, there is no merits in this petition. The Crl.M.C.is dismissed. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.