IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 RPFC.No. 309 of 2009() ---------------------- CMP NOS.645/2004, 809/2005 AND 1609/2006 IN MC.78/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- A.M.CHANDRAN,S/O.CHANDU, C.NO.5252, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR BY ADV. ADV.ADEEP ANWAR(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. R.BINDHU, 29 YEARS,D/O.LATE RAMAN, KOZHIPERUNNARVAYAL,VELLIAMADUKUNNU.P.O., MARIKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 2. RINIL, 1 YEAR AND 9 MONTHS, MINOR. 3. GREESHMA, 4 MONTHS, MINOR (MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.309 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner appointed on State Brief. 2. In this revision presented from jail where petitioner is detained, challenge is to the separate orders passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in C.M.P.Nos.645 of 2004, 809 of 2005 and 1609 of 2006, all under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Contention of petitioner is that he is unable to pay maintenance. It is stated that he was undergoing treatment at the time the Family Court passed the exparte order for maintenance against him. Learned counsel contends that the necessary satisfaction to set petitioner exparte is not entered in the order awarding maintenance. 3. Legality and correctness of order awarding maintenance is not a matter to be looked in this revision. That is a matter which the petitioner has to challenge in separate proceedings if he is otherwise entitled to that course. 4. So far as the orders impugned in this revision are concerned, it is seen that imprisonment is for a period of twelve (12) months each. It is directed that the sentence shall run consecutively. Petitioner was taken into custody on 22.8.2007. He has not paid the maintenance payable to the respondents, his wife and children. However taking into account all relevant circumstances I am RP(FC) No.309/2009 2 satisfied that imprisonment for a period of eight (8) months each is sufficient in the ends of justice which shall run consecutively. Orders under challenge are modified accordingly. This revision petition is allowed to the extent that imprisonment awarded to the petitioner on C.M.P.Nos.645 of 2004, 809 of 2005 and 1609 of 2006 is modified as eight (8) months each which shall run consecutively. Court below shall issue modified warrant to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks