Kerala High Court
Sathar vs Jubairiya on 14 February, 2020
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
RPFC.No.342 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 319/2014 DATED 16-09-
2015 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SATHAR
S/O.FATHEEVI, IBRAHIMINTE PURACKEL HOUSE,
PARAVANNA, VAKKAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JUBAIRIYA
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O.KHALID, MARATHINGAL HOUSE, KOOTTAYI.P.O.,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 ABDULLA
S/O.JUBAIRIYA, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN
AND MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10-02-2020, ALONG WITH RPFC.341/2015, THE COURT
ON 10-02-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
RPFC.No.341 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 344/2012 DATED 16-09-
2015 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SATHAR
S/O.FATHEEVI, IBRAHIMINTE PURACKEL HOUSE,
PARAVANNA, VAKKAD, TIRUR.
BY ADV. SATHAR (PARTY)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JUBAIRIYA
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O.KHALID, MARATHINGAL HOUSE, KOOTTAYI.P.O.,
TIRUR.
2 ABDULLA
AGED 4 YEARS
(MINOR), S/O.JUBAIRIYA, REPRESENTED BY HIS
GUARDIAN AND MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10-02-2020, ALONG WITH RPFC.342/2015, THE COURT
ON 10-02-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC.No.342 OF 2015 & 341 OF 2015
..3..
ORDER
[ RPFC.342/2015, RPFC.341/2015 ] Dated this the 14th day of February 2020 These revision petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Family Court, Tirur in C.M.P. No.22 of 2014 and C.M.P. No.319 of 2014 in M.C.No.344 of 2012 .
2. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the above cases. The respondents in these revision petitions were the petitioners in the above applications.
3. The revision petitioner assails the order passed by the Family Court sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 280 days in C.M.P. No.22 of 2014 and 220 days in C.M.P.No.319 of 2014, for committing default in paying the arrears of maintenance due to respondents ordered in M.C.No.344 of 2012.
4. The revision petitioner's case is that even though the Family Court had ordered him to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and RPFC.No.342 OF 2015 & 341 OF 2015 ..4..
Rs.3,000/- respectively, he is presently physically handicapped, having 40% disability. Similarly, his mother is an heart patient and his father died on 08.07.2013. In the aforesaid circumstances, he is unable to pay the amount ordered in M.C.No.344 of 2012. He admits that the respondents have filed C.M.P. Nos.22 of 2014 and 319 of 2014 to recover the amounts due to them as per the order in M.C.No.344 of 2012. He has further pleaded that he has paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- in four installments. He seeks to pay the balance amount in equated monthly installments. He has a further case that since his sister's marriage was fixed on 01.10.2015, he was unable to pay the arrears of maintenance. However, the learned Judge of the Family Court ignoring the above defence has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 280 days (20days x 14) in CMP No.22 of 2014 and 220 days (20days x 14) in CMP No.319 of 2014. According to him, no distress warrant was issued before passing the above sentence. Hence the revision petitions may be allowed and the impugned orders may be set aside.
RPFC.No.342 OF 2015 & 341 OF 2015 ..5..
5. Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedures (in short 'Cr.PC') reads as follows:-
125.Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.--(1) xxx (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
[emphasis supplied]
6. This Court in Benny Varghese v. Siby P. Kuruvila [2014 (1) KLT 93] has held that Court is empowered to order imprisonment of a defaulter for one month, for each month's default.
7. The Family Court has rightly, in exercise of its discretion under Section 125(3), ordered the revision petitioner to undergo 20 days imprisonment for each month's default. Accordingly, the Family Court, in CMP No.22 of 2014 directed the RPFC.No.342 OF 2015 & 341 OF 2015 ..6..
revision petitioner to undergo 280 days imprisonment and in CMP No.319 of 2014 directed the revision petitioner to undergo 220 days imprisonment. The above sentence of imprisonment has been passed strictly in accordance with Section 125(3) Cr.PC and the law declared by this Court.
8. The said orders were passed as early as on 16.09.2015, to realise arrears of maintenance due to the respondents from the year 2012 onwards. The reasons assigned by the revision petitioner in the R.P.(FCs) for nonpayment of the monthly maintenance allowance to the respondents are all flimsy and untenable. The revision petitioner cannot shirk away his liability to maintain the respondents as ordered in M.C.No.344 of 2012. The said order has become final. The revision petitioner does not require to be shown any leniency or clemency as prayed in the R.P. (FCs).
9. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by the Family Court. There is no circumstances warranting the interference of this Court invoking RPFC.No.342 OF 2015 & 341 OF 2015 ..7..
its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act r/w Section 401 of Cr.PC.
These revision petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS JUDGE kkj/15.02.2020