Disposed

Kavitha N.P., v. Raju

Kerala HC2 Mar 2021OP(Crl.)/55/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this OP(Crl.), the High Court of Kerala addressed the non-payment of maintenance by a respondent who appeared in other court cases. Recognizing deliberate evasion and official inaction despite distress warrants, the Court directed the Family Court to ensure effective execution of maintenance orders, deeming the pandemic an insufficient excuse.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Family Court to take appropriate, effective and expeditious steps for executing orders directing payment of maintenance.

Kavitha N.P., Vs Raju — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

OP(Crl.).No.55 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MC 331/2016 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 KAVITHA N.P., AGED 48 YEARS W/O. NELLIPARAMBIL RAJU, NEDIYAMBATH HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680027.

¶9

2 RIYA, AGED 19 YEARS D/O. NELLIPARAMBIL RAJU, NEDIYAMBATH HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680027.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.K.V.WINSTON SMT.ANU JACOB

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

RAJU AGED 58 YEARS S/O. NELLIPARAMBIL GOPALAN, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHENPEEDIKA P.O., VADAKUMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680642.

¶13

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(Crl.).No.55 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2021

¶18

The petitioners, wife and daughter of the respondent, had filed M.C No.282 of 2011, the Family Court, Thrissur and obtained an order directing the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- each. Later, by the order in M.C No.331 of 2016, the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.5,000/- , Rs.10,000/-, respectively. As the respondent failed to pay maintenance, the petitioners approached the Family Court with an execution petition (C.M.P No. 443 of 2018) claiming arrears of maintenance of Rs.48,000/-. Towards that claim, the respondent paid Rs. 20,000/- and an amount of Rs.28,000/- is in balance. As the respondent continued the default, petitioners approached the Family Court again with C.M.P No. 1265 of 2019, claiming arrears of maintenance of Rs.2,25,000/-. A third execution petition (C.M.P. No. 667 of 2020) was filed thereafter claiming Rs.60,000/- towards arrears of maintenance. A total amount of Rs. 3,13,000/- is due under the three petitions. The grievance of the petitioners is that, though the respondent is

¶19

OP(Crl.).No.55 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

appearing in the connected cases, he has succeeded in avoiding payment of maintenance, despite the distress warrants issued against him.

¶22

In the report called for, the learned Family Court Judge has stated that all necessary steps for executing the order by issuing distress warrants was taken and that, as per the information received from the Revenue officials, the warrant has been forwarded to the Village Officer, Vadakkummuri for urgent execution. It is reported that from 2.4.2020 onwards, the execution petition is being adjourned due to lock down restrictions.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the previous was on 16.2.2021 and the petitions have been adjourned to 23.4.2021, awaiting action on the distress warrant. 5. I find substance in the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent that, the respondent is defending the Court by refusing to pay the maintenance amount and evading arrest, while, at the same time, he is appearing and contesting the other cases before the very same Court. Being so, if the Court finds deliberate inaction on the part of the Revenue authorities, recommendation shall be made for taking appropriate action

¶24

OP(Crl.).No.55 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

should be taken against the erring officials. The pandemic and lockdown restrictions cannot be an excuse for delaying the maintenance due to a hapless wife and daughter. Considering the limited relief being granted to the petitioners, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

¶27

The original petition is disposed of directing the Family Court to take appropriate, effective and expeditious steps for executing the orders directing payment of maintenance to the respondents.

¶28

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶29

¶30

OP(Crl.).No.55 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JULY 23, 2018 IN M.C.NO.331 OF 2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF C.M.P. (EXECUTION) NO.1265/2019 IN M.C.NO.331 OF 2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF C.M.P.(EXECUTION) NO.443/2018 IN M.C.NO.282 OF 2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF C.M.P.(EXECUTION) NO.667/2020 IN M.C.NO.331 OF 2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.

Kavitha N.P., v. Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavitha N.P., v. Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu K.B Vs State of Kerala

Vini Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

C.K.Vijayan Vs Commissioner of Police

Sravan Satyan, Vs Simi Sravan Satyan

Ajmal Vs the State of Kerala

Joseph .S.Kurian Vs State of Kerala