Sanalkumar v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/17TH POUSHA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 7454 of 2014 () --------------------------- CMP.NO. 5810/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOLLAM -------------------- PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :

------------------------------------------- SANALKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.DAVID, MARY VILASAM, SINKARAPALLY KODUVILA P.O., KOLLAM BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER :

--------------------------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM

2. SAIJU THOMAS, AGED 35 YRS., MARY VILASAM, SINKARAPALLY, KODUVILA P O NOW RESIDES AT PANAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PERINADU CHEMMAKADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691601 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JIBU P. THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/-

Crl.MC.No. 7454 of 2014 () ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

------------------------------------------ ANNEXURE 1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO 5810/2011 DTD. 30/10/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- I, KOLLAM RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.M.C. No.7454 of 2014 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of January, 2015

O R D E R

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ An interim order of protection by way of maintenance has been ordered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kollam vide order dated 30.10.2012 to the petitioner in C.M.P.5810/2011 and her mentally retarded child. The present petitioner, who is the respondent in the said C.M.P., has not cared to look after and maintain his wife and the mentally retarded child. The court below has ordered an amount of Rs.2,500/- each per month by way of maintenance. It seems that the petitioner has not paid any amount till now.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

There is absolutely nothing to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. In fact, the amount ordered is too low. Still, the petitioner has come

Crl.M.C.7454/2014 : 2 :

up by challenging the said order. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, and the same does not call for any interference at all. This Crl.M.C. is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed at the threshold, and I do so.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/07/01 // True Copy // PA to Judge