Maju Peter v. Philly Maju @ Kochuthressia Philly

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/27TH ASWINA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 3116 of 2015 () M.P.No.356/2014 IN M.C.No.145/2014 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM ===================== PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN M.P.NO.356/2014 IN M.C.NO.145/2014: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAJU PETER, NANAKKAL HOUSE GLASS FACTORY ROAD, KALAMASSERY PO ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 683 104 BY ADVS.SMT.P.F.ROSY SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN M.P.NO.356/2014 IN M.C.NO.145/2014 AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. PHILLY MAJU @ KOCHUTHRESSIA PHILLY NANAKKAL HOUSE, GLASS FACTORY ROAD, KALAMASSERY PO ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 683 104

2. ERICSSON (MINOR) S/O.MAJU PETER, NANAKKAL HOUSE, GLASS FACTORY ROAD, KALAMASSERY PO ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 683 104

3. JUDE (MINOR), S/O.MAJU PETER NANAKKAL HOUSE, GLASS FACTORY ROAD, KALAMASSERY PO ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 683 104

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 031. R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JUSTIN JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 3116 of 2015 () APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- ANNEXURE 1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.5.2013 IN C.M.P. NO.1448 OF 2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ALUVA ANNEXURE II- TRUE COPIES OF THE SOME OF THE BILLS PAID BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND OTHER RELATED EXPENSES EXPENDED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE RESPONDENTS ANNEXURE III- TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 14.5.2015 AND 18.5.2015 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALAMASSERY AND TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ALUVA RESPECTIVELY TO THE 3RD AND 2ND RESPONDENTS RESEPCTIVELY ANNEXRUE IV- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.6.14 FILED BY THE PETITONER IN M.P.NO.356 OF 2014 IN M.C.NO.145 OF 2014 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE V- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.6.2014 IN M.P.NO.356 OF 2014 IN M.C.NO.145 OF 2014 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT , ERNAKULAM RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD

P. UBAID, J.

--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2015

O R D E R

The petitioner herein is aggrieved by an order of interim maintenance passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He is the respondent in M.C.No.145/2014. Along with the main petition, his wife and children brought M.P.No.356/2014 for interim maintenance.

On M.P.No.356/2014 the learned trial Judge passed orders on 20.06.2014 directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to his wife and children at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.

2. This Court has settled the legal position that a revision will not lie against an order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. An interim order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is always subject to appropriate modification by the trial court itself, and this modification will include even cancellation. In appropriate cases where the aggrieved person does not proceed to challenge the interim order, he can even wait till final decision is taken by the trial court in the main proceeding. What is not possible directly by recourse to ordinary procedure, cannot be

granted indirectly by the court by exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has an object. Such exercise of powers cannot defeat the interest of justice including the position settled by the High Court otherwise as regards a legal issue. This Court has discouraged revision against interim order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with an object. The said object is to avoid unnecessary petitions challenging interim maintenance granted by the court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., because such an order will always be subject to appropriate modification by the trial court itself, and will be subject to final orders passed by the trial court in the main proceeding. If such an order is interfered with or quashed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

, it will definitely defeat the very object of the position of law settled by the High Court. Here, I find that the petitioner's remedy will lie in the trial court itself. Of course, it is true that the impugned order was passed by the court below without hearing him properly and effectively. When the Family Court orders interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is just and appropriate that the respondent be properly and effectively heard.

take a decision regarding the prayer for interim maintenance. This will have to be considered by the learned trial Judge when an application comes from the petitioner for modification or cancellation.

In the result, this petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the trial court itself for appropriate modification as regards the order passed in MP No.356/2014.

Sd/- P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge