Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Unknown vs Petitioner(S)/ on 2 November, 2012

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                    PRESENT:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

                   TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / `29TH PHALGUNA, 1939

                                             Crl.MC.No. 762 of 2017


      (ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.326/2015 IN MC NO.343/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD)


PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER


  L.GEORGE FERNANDAS,
  AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.P.LURDHURAJ,
  D.NO.2/126, KOMBAKADDU, ITTIPADI POST,
  PALLADAM, TIRUPPUR, TAMIL NADU.


   BY ADV.SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)


RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

1. EMILY FLORA,
   AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.C.IRITHAYARAJ,
   YERAMAKARAVIDU, PAMBUPARAIKULAM,
   VALAYAR, PALAKKAD-678 624.

2. STATE OF KERALA
   REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

   R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA


  THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 762 of 2017

                                      APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 2-11-2012 IN
      IDOP NO. 63/2012 OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL
      DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUPPUR.

ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE WARRANT TO ENFORCE THE
      PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE BY DISTRESS AND SALE
      DATED 28-12-2015.



RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL


                               /TRUE COPY/   PS TO JUDGE.

                        SUNIL THOMAS, J.
                       ------------------
                     Crl.M.C.No.762 of 2017
                         - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
               Dated this the 20th day of March, 2018

                             ORDER

The petitioner herein is challenging Annexure B order by which distress warrant was issued to him in execution of the maintenance order. It seems that, maintenance order was granted in favour of the wife. It appears that, monthly maintenance ordered is Rs.2,500/- and, as on the date of Annexure B, total amount of Rs.32,500/- was due towards maintenance.

2. Even though notice was served on the respondent, she has not chosen to contest the proceedings.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in extenso, I find no legal ground on which Annexure B distress warrant can be assailed. Hence, Crl.M.C.fails and is dismissed leaving open the right of the petitioner herein to seek appropriate remedies.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS Judge dpk /true copy/ PS to Judge.