IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1017 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.437/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA MC.97/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA (CMP 4237/08) REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ---------------------------------------------------------- SUBASH.N., AGED 46, KUDILICHIRAYIL, THATHAMPILLI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU SMT.DEEPTHI AZAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DIVYAKUMARI, D/O.SADASIVAN, AGED 41, MADAYAMTHOTTUNKAL, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. NIKHITA SUBASH (MINOR, AGED 12) DO. DO. REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, THE 2ND RESPONDENT. 4. VISHNU NARAYANAN, (MINOR, AGED 7) DO. DO. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, THE 2ND RESPONDENT. (THE MINOR RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND,THE 2ND RESPONDENT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1017 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25 th day of March, 2009 ORDER Petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent herein and father of respondents 3 and 4 who are minor children. CMP No.1237/2008 was an application filed by respondents 2 and 4 herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha claiming interim maintenance. As per the ex parte order dated 10.9.2008 the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the 2nd respondent herein and Rs.1,000/- per month to each of respondents 3 and 4 herein. The said order was again confirmed in appeal filed as Crl.Appeal No.457 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision. 2. Apart from the fact that the impugned order is an interlocutory order passed in M.C.No.97 of 2008 which is an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and therefore rendering this revision not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Crl.R.P.No.1017 of 2009 2 Cr.P.C, the lower appellate court has given detailed reasons in support of its conclusion for confirming the order for maintenance. The fact that an application for maintenance is pending before the Family Court, Alappuzha, is no ground to reduce the quantum of maintenance. This revision is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is given further time of one month from today to deposit the arrears of maintenance. Dated this the 25 th day of March, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj