HAMSA Vs. ABDUL JALEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in both the revision petitions is the same person. Crl.R.P. No. 728/98 is directed against the order dated 27.11.96 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pattambi in Crl. M.P. No. 2133/96 and M.C. No. 49/95. Crl.R.P. No. 729/98 is filed against the order dated 27.1.96 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1471/96 and M.C. No. 47/95 by the same court.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed M.C. Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49 and 53/95 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pattambi claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each from his five sons under S.125 of Cr.P.C. Though M.C. 53/95 was filed at a later point of time, that M.C. was disposed of first by the lower court by passing an ex parte order against the respondent therein on 18.1.1996 directing him to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. After the order in that M.C. was passed the respondent in the other M.Cs. filed petitions in the respective M.Cs. contending that those M.Cs. should be dismissed in view of the order passed in M.C. 53/95 granting maintenance of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from another son. The lower court considered those applications and passed separate orders allowing the Crl.M.Ps. and dismissing the M.Cs. finding that so long as the order in M.C. 53/95 is in force, the claim against the other sons is not maintainable. The revision petitioner has filed these revision petitions before this Court challenging the orders passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the M.Cs. as not maintainable.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the revision petitioner that revision petitions are also filed against the orders passed in M.C. Nos. 46 and 48 of 1995 by the lower court but they are not admitted since the petitions filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing those revision petitions are not disposed of since the service is incomplete in those petitions.