ANTONY M.A. Vs. WENTY THIMOTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has suffered an order of maintenance in MC.No.14/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam. He filed an application to set aside the exparte order, which was allowed by Ext.P1 common order. The court below imposed several conditions which no doubt, were onerous in so far as almost the entire amount due as per the final order was ordered to be deposited. This was carried in appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions court by order in Crl.M.P.1413/2018 in Crl.Appeal No.203/2018 granted an interim stay on condition that the petitioner herein shall deposit the entire arrears of maintenance reckoned @ Rs.15000/- from December 2015 till date on or before 31.5.2018. The order was passed on 10.5.2018. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as on that day the total amount due was more than Rs.4,00,000/-. This is challenged in the OP(Crl), contending that both the courts imposed very onerous conditions on him.

(2.) As mentioned above, the trial court had imposed very onerous conditions for setting aside the exparte order. However, a more reasonable order was passed by the court below, while granting a stay. It is pertinent to note that the delay sought to be condoned was only 103 days. Obviously, on an evaluation of the available materials, the court below held that there were grounds for setting aside the exparte order. Then the only question that remain is whether the condition imposed is onerous. Having regard to the fact that the delay sought to be condoned was less, I feel that the learned Sessions Judge should not have imposed a condition of this nature. Having considered this, I am inclined to modify that order and grant a composite order read as follows: