SUNIL KUMAR Vs. JALAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash Ext. PI order. Counsel submits before us that mentioning of Ext. PI order is a mistake and what his client had intended to set aside is Ext. P2 order. We are proceeding the case in that frame.

(2.) Admittedly the writ petitioner faced an order from the Family Court, Kollam to pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs. 350 per mensem. However, admittedly, the amount had not been paid. An application by the mother of the minor child seeking payment of the said amount was filed. It resulted in Ext. PI order which was as under:

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that for realisation of an amount, only one imprisonment alone is permissible and the purpose behind Ext. P2 is to punish him again for realisation of the same amount for which he had already undergone imprisonment ordered in Ext. PI. Ext.Pl was issued on an application for realisation of an amount of Rs. 21,350, which is the aggregate amount of maintenance for 84 months. In support of the contention, the decision reported in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali,2000 1 DMC 313, is much relied on. Going by the decision, Ext. P2 is bad, it is contended.