ISMAIL K, Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein suffered an ex parte order of maintenance in M.C.No.209 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg. Petitioner was inter alia directed to maintain the wife and two children @ 2,500/- ? to the wife and ?1,500/- each to each of the child. There were few other directions also.

(2.) Aggrieved by the above order the petitioner herein approached the appellate court by filing Crl.Appeal No.89 of 2017. The appellate court allowed the appeal and gave reasonable time to the petitioner herein to contest the matter on merits. However, the court below directed the petitioner herein to pay and continue to pay the maintenance as ordered by the court below and also to deposit the arrears. Subject to the above, he was directed to be given an opportunity of being heard. This is under challenge in the present proceedings.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two-fold. The prime contention is that he did not get a reasonable opportunity to appear before the court below and contest the proceedings. Second contention is that the court below ought not have ordered maintenance to the wife and children since she was not his legally wedded wife.