Surendran v. Usha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/12TH KARTHIKA, 1937 OP(Crl.).No. 258 of 2015 () ---------------------------- (MP.NO.1231/2013 AND MP.NO.1232/2013 IN MC.NO. 427/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR) -------------- PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :

-------------------------------------------- SURENDRAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KARAPPAN, ASARIKANDI HOUSE, P.O KOLAKKATTUCHALI, CHELAMBRA VIA, MALAPPURAM -683 634.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR SRI.P.SHAMMI NAVAS RESPONDENT :

------------------------- USHA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.P.K.VELUKUTTY, PARAMBU VEETIL, PURANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR- 680 551.

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

OP(Crl.).No. 258 of 2015 () ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1.

COPY OF THE PETITION MC.NO.427/11 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR DATED 5.8.11.

EXHIBIT P2.

COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR IN MC.NO.427/11 DATED 27.2.13.

EXHIBIT P3.

COPY OF THE PETITION IA.NO.1232/13 IN MC.NO. 427/11 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 4.10.13. EXHIBIT P4.

COPY OF THE PETITION IA.NO.1231/13 IN MC.NO. 427/11 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR DATED 4.10.13. EXHIBIT P5.

COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO. 1232/13 IN MC.NO.427/11 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 20.9.14. EXHIBIT P6.

COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO.1231/13 IN MC.NO.427/11 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 20.9.14.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL ------------------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

================ O.P.(Crl) No. 258 of 2015 ======================= Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2015

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. It seems that an order for the payment of an amount of 2,500/- per month as maintenance alone has ₹ been passed by the court below in the matter. That order does not call for any interference at all at the instance of the petitioner herein, who is the respondent in M.C.No.427/2011. Fortunately for the petitioner herein, the wife has not come up for getting the amount enhanced. This O.P (Crl.) is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed and I do so.

In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE stu