Allowed

Ashraf v. Naseema

Kerala HC14 Mar 2019OP(Crl.)/470/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous petition contested the warrant of arrest for non-payment of maintenance. The High Court allowed the petitioner to pay a lump sum followed by installments for identified arrears but clarified this facility does not extend to subsequent periods, leaving those subject to execution proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay ₹1,95,700 in installments for arrears covered by CMPs 95/2015 and 101/2017; warrant postponed; installment facility not extended to subsequent arrears.

Ashraf Vs Naseema — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

OP(Crl.).No. 470 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 132/2013 of FAMILY COURT, TIRUR

¶7

PETITIONER/:

¶8

ASHRAF

¶9

AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.LATE IRUMBUZHI AVALAN,MUNDIAKANDI HOUSE,PARAVOOR KARGIL,VIA PULIKKAL,KANNAMVETTIKAVU.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT673637.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SMT.USHA NARAYANAN SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 NASEEMA

¶13

AGED 39 YEARS,D/O.ASSAMIKANAKATH MUHAMMED KOYA,NEAR OTTUMMEL MUJAHID MOSQUE,PARAPPANANGADI.P.O,MALAPPURAM-676303.

¶14

2 FAVAS (MINOR AGED 17 YEARS) S/O.NASEEMA,NEAR OTTUMMEL MUJAHID MOSQUE,PARAPPANANGADI.P.O,MALAPPURAM676303.REPRESENTED BY MOTHER-NASEEMA.

¶15

3 FASNA (MINOR AGED 15 YEARS) D/O.NASEEMA,NEAR OTTUMMEL MUJAHID MOSQUE,PARAPPANANGADI.P.O,MALAPPURAM676303.REPRESENTED BY MOTHER-NASEEMA.

¶16

4 FASEELA (MINOR AGED 13 YEARS) D/O.NASEEMA,NEAR OTTUMMEL MUJAHID MOSQUE,PARAPPANANGADI.P.O,MALAPPURAM676303.REPRESENTED BY MOTHER-NASEEMA. BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶17

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P.(CRL) No. 470/2017

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

When the respondents who are mother and minor children filed CMP Nos. 95/2015 and 101/2017 seeking execution of Ext.P1 award passed on 26.4.2014 in M.C. No. 132/2013, by the Family Court, Tirur in exercise of its jurisdiction vested under Section 127 of the CRPC and warrant of arrest was issued by the court below as against the petitioner, husband-cum-father herein for failure to make payment due under the award, he filed this O.P. invoking under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order of his arrest issued by the execution court and also to permit him to pay arrears of maintenance in installments.

¶22

Heard counsel appearing on both sides.

¶23

As per CMP No.95/2015, the outstanding balance amount of maintenance in arrears due to the respondents is

¶24

.95,700/-. There is no dispute on this at all. The amount due as per CMP NO. 101/2017 is .1,50,000/-. When both figures are taken together, the gross liability of the petitioner

¶25

O.P.(CRL) No. 470/2017

¶26

¶27

would come to `.2,45,700/-. This gross liability is not under dispute before me. The petitioner had made deposit of

¶28

.50,000/- in compliance with the direction of this court as a condition for keeping the warrant proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance. Deposit of .50,000/- in the court below is not also under dispute. On the whole, the total liability of the petitioner as per Exts.P2 & P3 applications after deducing the aforesaid .50,000/- would come to .1,95,700/-.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner offered to pay .1,95,700/- amount in installments to which the counsel for the respondents has also consented. After hearing both sides, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be directed to make initial deposit of .50,000/- in lump sum out of `.1,95,000/- on or before 2.5.2019 and pay the balance amount in 10 equal monthly installments payable on the last day in the first week of every month. The first payment of installment shall fall due on 7.6.2019. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are execution petitions filed under Section 128 of

¶30

O.P.(CRL) No. 470/2017

¶31

¶32

the CRPC pending execution of the award dated 26.4.2014 and large arrears are outstanding due to the respondents for subsequent periods also. He wanted this court to make it clear that the installment facility permitted does not extend to any other petitions than Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 petitions. I find that his submission is quite reasonable.

¶33

In the result, this O.P.(Crl.) 470/2017 is allowed permitting the petitioner to clear off the outstanding arrears of `.1,95,700/- by making payment in installments as indicated in the previous paragraph of this judgment. It is made clear that the installment facility afforded to the petitioner will stand confined only to arrears covered by Exts.P2 & P3 petitions. He will not be entitled to any facility of payment by installment in respect of arrears which accrued subsequent to Exts.P2 and P3 execution petitions. The warrant proceedings pending against the petitioner, will stand postponed so long as he makes payment of the amount in accordance with the time frame indicated by this court in the earlier part of this order. In case there is any default in making the payment as aforesaid, the respondents

¶34

O.P.(CRL) No. 470/2017

¶35

¶36

will be at liberty to revive the execution proceedings based on Exts.P2 & P3 petitions. This judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents continuing the execution proceedings if any, initiated for realisation of arrears for the period subsequent to Exts.P2 and P3.

¶37

This O.P.(Crl.) is disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

T.V.ANILKUMAR, JUDGE

¶40

Al/-

¶41

O.P.(CRL) No. 470/2017

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.132/2013 OF THE FAMILY COURT,TIRUR,DATED 26/4/2014 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.95/2015 TO EXECUTE THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.132/2013 OF THE FAMILY COURT,TIRUR. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF CMP NO.101/2017 TO EXECUTE THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.132/2013 OF THE FAMILY COURT,TIRUR.

¶46

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶47

TRUE COPY

¶48

P.S TO JUDGE

¶49

AL/-

Ashraf v. Naseema

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf v. Naseema

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranganathan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hakkem P.V Vs State of Kerala

P.G.Krishnan @ Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan S Vs Suganthi S

Prince George Vs State of Kerala

Anoop K.S. Vs Aswathy Rajan