Kerala High Court
K.V.Ramachandran vs P.Shyla on 7 April, 2014
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
MONDAY,THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/17TH CHAITHRA, 1936
RPFC.No. 380 of 2010 ( )
-------------------------
MC.NO.200/2004 OF FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD
--------------------
REVISION PETITIONER :
--------------------------------------------
K.V.RAMACHANDRAN,S/O.APUTTY,
C.NO.8556, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR.
BY ADV. SRI.V.SREEJA (STATE BRIEF)
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. P.SHYLA,AGED 30 YEARS,D/O.A.V.VASU.
2. RESHMA, AGED 10 YEARS.
3. REMYA, AGED 9 YEARS,
(RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY
THEIR NEXT FRIEND MOTHER). ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KANHIRAPOIL, P.O.KANHIRAPOIL, AMBELATKARA VILLAGE
HOSDURG TALUK).
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
P.UBAID, J.
---------------------------------------
R.P(FC) No.380 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of April , 2014
O R D E R
This revision was filed on the complaint of one Ramachandran, made through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, while undergoing sentence in execution of the maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.200/2004. When he committed default in payment of maintenance, he was brought arrested in the Family Court on 20.10.2009, in execution of the maintenance order in two applications. When he declined payment without any excuse he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a total period of 11 months in the two applications where the total period of default is 21 months.
2. The legality of the sentence in enforcement of the maintenance order is challenged by the revision petitioner. His contention is that he could not be successively sentenced to undergo imprisonment in execution of the maintenance order, or that, having undergone sentence in earlier proceedings, it was illegal on the part of the Family Court to sentence him again to R.P(FC) No.380 of 2010 2 undergo imprisonment.
3. The legal issue raised by the revision petitioner was referred to a Division Bench of this Court. This revision along with some connected revision were considered by the Division Bench. By order dated 18.11.2013 the Division Bench decided the legal issue to the effect that successive sentence in enforcement of maintenance order is not illegal at all. The Division Bench held that imprisonment undergone on a previous occasion is not a sufficient cause to avoid further imprisonment for failure to pay maintenance for the subsequent periods.
In view of the decision of the Division Bench settling the legal issue this revision is only to be dismissed. I do not find any scope for interference as regards the term of sentence. For the total period of 21 months the sentence imposed by the trial court is 11 months. No other factual issue is involved in this matter.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE ab