BASHEER Vs. SUHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has suffered an ex parte order under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per mensum to the second respondent, his child. The petitioner was abroad at the relevant time and according to him, he has not been duly served. He has come back from his place of employment now and has learned that an ex parte order has been passed against the petitioner. Moreover, C.M.P. No. 681/09 has been filed before the Family Court, Malappuram for execution of the ex parte order. An amount of Rs. 22,500/- being the amount allegedly payable under the impugned ex parte order is claimed in the said execution petition. A warrant of arrest issued by the learned Judge of the Family Court is chasing the petitioner, it is alleged.

(2.) The petitioner has, thereupon, filed an application to get the ex parte order passed against him set aside. Ext.P6 is said to be the copy of that application filed on 26/08/2009. The short grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 is not being disposed of and in the meantime, the order is sought to be executed against him by arrest and detention. The learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that there may be a direction for early and expeditious disposal of Ext.P6 application to set aside the ex parte order and Ext.P7 application to condone the delay in filing the same.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has very valid contentions to urge in defence of the claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. According to him, there has been no neglect or refusal and adequate stipulations for maintenance of the child have already been made and provided as per Ext.P1 agreement between the parties. In these circumstances, it is prayed that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal of Exts.P6 and P7 applications and for a further direction that the petitioner may not be arrested in execution of the ex parte order which is sought to be executed by C.M.P. No. 681/09.