ABDUL SALAM U K, S/O ABDURAHIMAN, KADAKOTTIRY VEEDU POST KUMMINIPARAMBU, KONDOTTY Vs. CHALIL SAJITHA D/O AHAMMAD HAJI, THAZHATHETHODUVIL VEEDU PULIYAMPARAMBU POST, KONDOTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P9 order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram negativing the objections canvassed by the petitioner, the respondent in a proceeding under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code', is assailed in this Original Petition on the ground that the execution of the order of maintenance was barred by limitation and also pursuant to passing of such order competent civil court has passed a decree holding that the marriage between the petitioner and the first claimant in the aforesaid proceedings is null and void. Second claimant in the proceedings is stated to be the child born out of the wedlock of the first claimant and the present petitioner.

(2.) Claim of maintenance awarded to both the claimants from the petitioner has been challenged up to the apex court, but of no avail.

(3.) The Supreme Court has negatived the challenges dismissing the Special Leave Petition moved by the petitioner by order dated 03-08-2010. Later, after expiry of one year from such order, and that too after rendering of Ext.P5 judgment holding that the marriage between the petitioner and the first claimant is null and void and that the petitioner is not the biological father of the second claimant, execution proceedings over the order of maintenance were initiated by the claimants, is the submission of the counsel, to impeach Ext.P9 order. To my query, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that till date no step has been taken by the petitioner for altering or cancelling the maintenance order on any ground whatsoever, including the challenge based on Ext.P5 judgment rendered by the Family Court. In case he has any sustainable ground to seek cancellation of the order of maintenance granted in favour of the claimants, then, necessarily he has to take appropriate proceedings as contemplated under Section 127 of the Code. I find, exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court over the disputed questions involved touching upon the legality, propriety and correctness of Ext.P9 order is not called for in the present case. Reserving the right of the petitioner to seek for appropriate reliefs as under Section 127 of the Code, if so advised, the Original Petition is dismissed.