IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 RPFC.No. 315 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.113/2003 of the FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ARAYAL PARAMBIL RAMADAS, S/O.RAMAN, C.NO.6790, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.SINDHU THANKAM (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.315 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 26th day of August 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner appointed on State brief. 2. The revision is in challenge of order dated 04-12-2008 on C.M.P(Ex.)No.1232 of 2080 in M.C.No.113 of 2003 of the Family Court, Malappuram. Petitioner failed to pay maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2, wife and son for a period of 48 months. The total amount of arrears payable is Rs.1,23,000/-. When he was arrested and produced before court he had no explanation for non payment and hence learned Judge directed his detention in the prison for a period of 30 months. It is contended by learned counsel that the order for payment of maintenance was ex parte and further, that respondent No.2 has already attained majority. 3. If respondent No.2 has attained majority that is a matter which petitioner has to take up in the court below under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the order for payment of maintenance passed is ex parte that is also a matter which petitioner has to take up in the court below in appropriate proceedings. 4. On going through the order under challenge I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety requiring interference. However, considering the difficulties of petitioner expressed in his petition I am satisfied that imprisonment for a period of 20 months is R.P.F.C.No.315 of 2009 2 sufficient in the ends of justice. The order under challenge is modified accordingly. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed in part and the period of imprisonment is modified as 20 (twenty) months. Court below shall issue modified warrant to the Superintendent of prison concerned. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/