JAYAKRISHNAN Vs. PRIYADARSINI JAYAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein/wife approached the court below invoking provisions under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act seeking various reliefs against the petitioner herein/husband and his parents. Court below passed an order in M.C.No.3 of 2016 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, which was under challenge in Crl.Appeal.No.233 of 2017. In that, by way of an interim order in Crl.M.A.No.2023 of 2017 appellate court granted an order of stay of execution of the impugned order on depositing the entire arrears of maintenance as ordered by the court below within one month. This is challenged in O.P(Crl).No.489 of 2017, by the husband. When the matter came up before this Court, noting that the amount payable was not on record, directed the petitioner herein to produce a copy of the final order passed in the MC. Even though the case initially came up for admission on 31.08.2017, thereafter, there were several postings directing the petitioner in the O.P to produce a copy of the order in the MC. It was not produced for a long time. In the meanwhile, respondent, who had appeared, submitted that the court below is not proceeding with the case in the light of the pendency of this OP. Hence, this Court clarified that in the absence of stay, court below was free to proceed in accordance with law. The case was adjourned to 15.02.2018 as a last chance for production of the order. On 05.02.2018, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner herein had filed O.P(Crl).49 of 2018 challenging the order dated 30.01.2018 in C.M.P.No.7538 of 2017 in M.C.No.3 of 2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad. It appears that by virtue of the clarification order passed by this Court on 25.01.2018, court below proceeded with the execution and directed the petitioner herein to vacate the building. This was challenged in the original petition. Both the OPs are hence post together.

(2.) It appears in O.P(Crl).No.49 of 2018 that, there was direction to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as a condition for granting stay. Since the entire orders were not seem complied with, on record, this Court took the matter for hearing and took for orders. Thereafter, it was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order in the MC was produced and compliance in O.P.No.49 of 2018 was effected within time. A receipt was also produced. In the light of above, case was reopened and both sides were heard again.

(3.) It appears that, while O.P.No.489 of 2017 was being prosecuted and adjournments were sought on several dates, in the meanwhile, another OP No.49 of 2018 was filed against the order which was subsequently passed by the court below. It seems that the subject matter of maintenance is under challenge in Crl.APpeal.No.233 of 2017. It appears that the question of disputed residence was also the subject matter of the MC in which consequential order was passed in C.M.P.No.7538 of 2017. Hence, it appears that the ultimate decision is to be taken in Crl.Appeal.No.233 of 2017 pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge. The lower appellate court has already taken cognizance of the appeal and the matter is at large before that Court. The only matter now pending before this Court is regarding the condition imposed while staying the proceedings. I feel that, direction of the court below to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance is not justifiable. Having considered this, I feel that the amount ordered to be deposited shall be restricted to a sum of Rs. 75,000/-, out of which, Rs. 50,000/- has already been deposited.