IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 RPFC.No. 118 of 2010() C.M.P.NOS.1210/2006, 3089/2006 & 2031/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD ---------------------- APPELLANT :- ------------------ ABOOBACKER,S/O.HYDRU, C.NO.7978, CENTRAL PRISON,VIYYUR, THRISSUR-680010. PETITIONER :- ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RASIFA,D/O.ABOOBACKER,AGED 9 YEARS (MINOR), KALLIYATH VEEDU,KUTTIPPALA AMSOM, NADUVATTOM DESOM,PONNANI TALUK. REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER RABIA,29 YEARS,D/O.HYDER, MARAYAMKUNNATHU VEEDU, KAPPUR AMSOM, KOLLANNUR DESOM, KAPPUR.P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK,PKD DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI FOR R2 SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R2 STATE BRIEF-SMT.MINI ELIZABETH GEORGE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.118 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred challenging the common order dated 13.1.2010 in C.M.P.Nos.1210/2006, 3089/2006 and 2031/2008 of the Family Court, Palakkad. 2. In pursuance of the above common order the petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 40 months or till the payment of Rs.79,000/- whichever is earlier and accordingly, he is undergoing imprisonment in the Central Prison at Viyyur from where he preferred this revision petition. As per the order of this Court, Smt.Mini Elizabeth George is appointed as state brief counsel to prosecute the revision petition on behalf of the petitioner. R.P.F.C.No.118 of 2010 : 2 : Thus, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 3. The claimant in the proceeding for the maintenance under Sec.125 of Cr.P.C. is none other than the daughter of the revision petitioner. As per the order of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi, the revision petitioner is directed to pay maintenance to the claimant at the monthly rate of Rs.1,500/- and it was also directed in the order that the maintenance shall be paid from the date of filing of the petition, that on 16.1.2003. As there was failure on the part of the revision petitioner, the claimant approached the court below by filing C.M.P.No.1210/2006 for realization of Rs.51,000/- being the arrears for 34 months. As per the court’s order towards the arrears in the above petition, the petitioner has paid only Rs.6,500/- and the balance was Rs.44,500/-. As there was arrears again the claimant filed C.M.P.No.3089/2006 for Rs.18,000/- being the 12 months arrears. In that C.M.P. R.P.F.C.No.118 of 2010 : 3 : also the revision petitioner paid only Rs.1,500/-, the balance was Rs.16,500/-. Also the claimant filed C.M.P.No.2031/2008 for Rs.18,000/- for 12 months. No payment is made in the said petition. Thus, from the impugned order it can be seen that out of the total amount claimed in the three petitions the outstanding balance is Rs.79,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is not in a position to pay the entire amount in lump sum especially when he is undergoing imprisonment and therefore submitted that petitioner may be given installment facilities to pay off the entire amount. 5. A similar prayer was taken before the execution court but the same was declined by a detailed order, and sufficient reason has shown in paragraph 9 of the said order. In the said order, the court below has found that though the claimant has claimed for a total sum of R.P.F.C.No.118 of 2010 : 4 : Rs.87,000/-, the only amount paid is Rs.8,000/-. The trial court has considered the conduct of the revision petitioner on his request for installment facility for payment. According to the court below it is very difficult to get the petitioner arrested and strict warning had been given to the police for the same. Thus, according to the court below, if the revision petitioner is released it would be very difficult to get him arrested again. It has also held that, it is not possible to realize the arrears by resorting the procedure prescribed under Sec.421 of Cr.P.C. since he is not owing any property. In the present case, it is relevant to note that the claimant is the daughter of the revision petitioner. When the trial court ordered the maintenance, unless the same is set aside or altered, the revision petitioner is bound to comply with the direction and to pay maintenance to the claimant at the rate fixed by the court below. Hence, I find no illegality or irregularity to interfere with the impugned order. R.P.F.C.No.118 of 2010 : 5 : Therefore, there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt