IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 893 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2010 IN CRMP.487/2010 IN CRA.75/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CMP.5519/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:- --------------------------------------------------------------- SUNIL, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. ANTONEY, THONDUVAYAL PURAYIDAM, CHETHANA NAGAR, VALATHUNGAL, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER:- ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SALEENA.A., W/O. SUNIL, THONDUVAYAL PURAYIDAM, CHETHANA NAGAR, VALATHUNGAL, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 893 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. ORDER As against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam in C.M.P. No. 5519 of 2009 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 inter alia, directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the 2nd respondent and the child at the rate of Rs.2000/- each per month from 09.06.2009 onwards, the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kollam under Section 29 of the said Act. In the said appeal, he filed Crl. M.P. No. 487 of 2010 seeking suspension of the order passed by the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge as per the impugned order dated 01.03.2010 suspended the order appealed against on condition that the petitioner pays the maintenance as ordered and also the arrears of maintenance within 15 days from that day. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision. 2. I am not inclined to issue notice to the 2nd respondent. Since the order passed by the Magistrate was appealable under Section 29 of the Act, the learned Sessions Judge should have shown some indulgence while granting a stay. By imposing the Crl.R.P. No. 893/2010 : 2 : above condition, the learned Sessions Judge was really dismissing the interim application for stay. Accordingly, the petitioner is given one month's time from today to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards the arrears of maintenance. He will continue to deposit at the rate of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month towards the future maintenance due to the 2nd respondent and the child. This will be the order till the disposal of Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2010. The impugned order is modified to this limited extent. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent herein shall be entitled to withdraw the said amounts as and when deposited. Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv The figure and words “Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only)” and “Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only)” occurring in the 5th and 7th lines respectively in page 2 of the final order dated 12.03.2010 in Crl.R.P. No. 893 of 2010 are corrected as “Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) respectively as per order dated 16.03.2010 in Crl. M.A. No. 2771 of 2010. sd/- Registrar (Judicial) Crl.R.P. No. 893/2010 : 3 :