SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No. 58/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam. The second respondent herein is the applicant in the above case. The said case was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The learned Magistrate as per order dated 23.4.2009 in C.M.P. No. 8927/2009 directed the Revision Petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000 to the second respondent herein. Thereafter, final order in M.C. No. 58/ 2009 was passed on 4.9.2010 wherein the maintenance was fixed at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. The said order was an ex parte order. Challenging the above said ex parte order, the Revision Petitioner herein filed Crl. A. No. 27/2010 before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara. The Additional Sessions Court as per order in Crl. M.P. No. 79/2011 dated 23.2.2011 stayed the operation of the order directing to pay Rs. 2,500 per month on condition that the Revision Petitioner shall deposit 50% of the said amount. It is submitted that the Revision Petitioner has deposited Rs. 33,000 as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the final order setting aside the ex parte order was passed on 19.8.2011 and remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate with a direction to the Revision Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000 per month till fresh consideration and disposal of M.C. No. 58/2009. In the said final order, the Appellate Court set aside the order dated 4.9.2010 passed in M.C. No. 58/2009.

(2.) After the remand, the 2nd respondent filed a petition, C.M.P. No. 7022/ 2011 dated 24.11.2011 claiming an amount of Rs. 81,000 as the amount due at the rate of Rs. 3,000 from May 2009 to July 2011 and also at the rate of Rs. 1,000 from 19.8.2011 to 19.11.2011. According to her, the Revision Petitioner defaulted payment of interim maintenance above mentioned and there is no justification for the same. The Revision Petitioner opposed the said prayer stating, inter alia, that he is not liable to pay maintenance at the rate more than Rs. 1,000 per month as directed by the Appellate Court. He disputed the claim of the second respondent that she is entitled to get interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month till 19.8.2011 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month. He is willing to pay maintenance at the rate fixed by the Appellate Court. In short, the contention is that since the order was set aside in appeal, he is liable to pay the defaulted arrears at the rate fixed in the final order passed in appeal, i.e., Rs. 1,000 per month only.

(3.) After considering the rival contentions, the learned Magistrate found that the claim of the second respondent to realise maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month till the order of the appellate Court is not at all maintainable. The objection raised by the Revision Petitioner in this regard is sustainable. According to the learned Magistrate, the second respondent can claim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month from May 2009 till this date. There are 33 months upto January 2012 for which the second respondent is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month and it will come only Rs. 33,000.