R KUMARAVADIVEL Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. SU. SRINIVASAN, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these Revisions submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the first respondent herein and he has come forward with these revisions challenging the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Comibatore in C. M. P. Nos. 269, 270 and 271 of 2001 in M. C. No. 193 of 1995 dated 28. 10. 2003 passing the order of arrest of the petitioner herein for the non-payment of the award of maintenance passed by the learned Special Judge, Family Court.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of maintenance was passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Coimbatore, on 22. 10. 1998 directing the petitioner herein to pay a maintenance of Rs. 500/- each of the respondents 1 to 3 totalling to Rs. 1,500/- p. m. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the order of the learned Family court Judge, the petitioner has to pay the arrears of maintenance amount from the date of petition i. e. From 25. 04. 1991 to till the date of order i. e. 22. 10. 1998. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arrears of the maintenance amount were not paid by the petitioner herein and as a result the respondent filed the above C. M. Ps for directing the petitioner to pay the arrears and for praying for issuance of warrant of arrest as the petitioner has not paid the arrears towards the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned Judge has passed a common order in all the three C. M. Ps on 28. 10. 2003 sentencing the petitioner to undergo 46 months simple imprisonment in C. M. P. No. 269 of 2001, 12 months simple imprisonment in C. M. P. No. 270 of 2001 and 9 months in C. M. P. No. 271 of 2001.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that being aggrieved by the above said order of the learned Special Judge, Family Court, the petitioner has come forward with these Revisions on the ground that the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Family Court, is against law and against the specific provision under Section 125 (3) of Cr. P. C.