IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.NO. 297 OF 2009() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/08/2009 IN CMP (EX.) 608/2009 IN MC.498/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED SHAFI, S/O.KAMBRAN KUNHEETHU HAJI, K.K.HOUSE, PO,.KUTTOOR, NORTH, AR.NAGAR, VENGARA POLICE STATION. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. NADIYA, D/O.ALAVI ERAMBATHIL, KAKKULATHINGAL HOUSE, PUKAYOOR, PO,OLAKARA, THENHIPPALAM,. 2. FATHIMA SHERIN, 3.1/2 YEARS(MINOR) KAKKULATHINGAL HOUSE, PUKAYOOR, PO,OLAKARA, THENHIPPALAM(MINOR REP.BY GUARDIAN, MOTHER, 1ST RES) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO.297 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to respondents in M.C. No.498 of 2006 of the Family Court, Malappuram. Claiming that petitioner has not complied with the order, respondents filed C.M.P(Exe.) No.608 of 2009 for realisation of the amount of Rs.86,000/-. In the meantime they also obtained a decree for realisation of certain amounts in O.P. No.366 of 2007 and that decree is being executed by filing E.P. No.116 of 2008. Court below found that petitioner had no sufficient cause for non-payment of the amount of maintenance and as per order dated 6.8.2009 directed that petitioner be imprisoned for a period twelve months. Grievance of petitioner is that there is a further direction that after the imprisonment is suffered petitioner shall be produced in the court below as he is respondent in E.P. No.116 of 2008 in that court. It is contended by learned counsel that it is open to the respondents to execute the decree in O.P. No.366 of 2007 but the direction that petitioner should be produced before the court below is not warranted. It is also submitted that petitioner is prepared to deposit Rs.86,000/- R.P(FC) No.297 of 2009 -: 2 :- payable on C.M.P(Exe.) No.608 of 2009 within a period of one month fro this day. 3. Having heard counsel on both sides, I am inclined to think that the direction in the impugned order that as and when petitioner is released from jail he shall be produced in the court below in connection with the execution of E.P. No.116 of 2008 is not warranted. Hence that part of the order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: The direction contained in the impugned order to cause production of petitioner in the court below as and when he is released from jail is set aside. It is directed that petitioner shall be released from jail on his suffering the term of imprisonment as ordered by the court below or on his paying the entire amount payable on C.M.P(Exe.) No.608 of 2009, whichever is earlier. In other respect this revision will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv R.P(FC) No.297 of 2009 -: 3 :-