Kerala High Court
Brijeesh Antony @ Sebastian vs Baby @ Brigit on 24 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1943
OP(CRL.) NO. 194 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDERS IN M.P.NO.641/2021, M.P. 641(A)/2021 AND M.P.
95/2020 IN MC 285/2019 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
BRIJEESH ANTONY @ SEBASTIAN, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. C. ANTONY, RESIDING AT VADEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMPALAM
JETTY, THRICHATTULALM P.O, PANAVALLY, ALAPPUZHA - 688526.
BY ADVS.
MEREENA.J.JOSEPH
SRI.N.J.PRINCE
RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS & STATE
1 BABY @ BRIGIT, AGED 36 YEARS,
W/O. BRIJEESH @ SEBASTIAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.
11/227, OPP. CHITTOOR DHYANA KENDRAM, CHERANELLOOR,
CHITTOOR P.O, PIN - 682027.
2 ABHY SEBASTIAN, AGED 12 YEARS,
S/O. BABY @ BRIGIT AND BRIJEESH @ SEBASTIAN, MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN BABY @ BRIGIT, AGED
36 YEARS, W/O. BRI[email protected] SEBASTIAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE
HOUSE NO. 11/227, OPP. CHITTOOR DHYANA KENDRAM,
CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, CHITTOOR P.O, PIN - 682027.
3 ANN MARIYA SEBASTIAN, AGED 9 YEARS,
D/O. BABY @ BRIGIT AND BRIJEESH @ SEBASTIAN, MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN BABY @ BRIGIT, AGED
36 YEARS, W/O. [email protected] SEBASTIAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE
HOUSE NO. 11/227, OPP. CHITTOOR DHYANA KENDRAM,
CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, CHITTOOR P.O, PIN - 682027.
4 AMAL SEBASTIAN, AGED 5 YEARS,
S/O. BABY @ BRIGIT AND BRIJEESH @ SEBASTIAN, MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN BABY @ BRIGIT, AGED
36 YEARS, W/O. [email protected] SEBASTIAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE
HOUSE NO. 11/227, OPP. CHITTOOR DHYANA KENDRAM,
CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, CHITTOOR P.O, PIN - 682027.
5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ON
BEHALF OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POOCHAKAL POLICE
STATION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI. K.C.ELDHO
R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. MALLENATHAN.M.
R5 BY ADV. SMT. SHYLAJA .S.C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CRL).No. 194/2021
2
JUDGMENT
The challenge is against the order of the
Family Court, Ernakulam allowing an application
for condonation of delay and ex parte order of
maintenance conditionally directing the
petitioner to pay half of the arrears of
maintenance and to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to
the respondent who are original petitioners 4 in
number, wife and three minor children.
2. It was submitted that in spite of notice,
the husband/respondent in the original petition
remained absent. Consequently, an ex parte
decree was passed. The husband came up with
these two applications only when coercive steps
were initiated against him for recovery of the
maintenance amount.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that he has to maintain his elderly
father and mother from his meager income out of
his job as maison. This court can take judicial
O.P.(CRL).No. 194/2021
notice of daily earning of a maison employed in
construction work. The arguments advanced by the
petitioner that he has to maintain his elderly
father and mother may not be a sufficient reason
to reject the claim of maintenance to his minor
children and his legally wedded wife. It is not
brought to notice of this court why he kept away
from the court inspite notice in the maintenance
application. This would prima facie show and
explain what is behind it. The Family Court had
applied a rationale which reflects a proper
balance between the petitioner and the
respondents by ordering deposit of half of the
arrears of maintenance and also Rs.5,000/-. But
having regard to the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is fit and proper
to direct the petitioner to deposit an amount of
Rs.50,000/- within one month from today and an
amount of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand
only) out of the arrears of maintenance within
two months thereafter, failing which, the
Original Petition will stand dismissed confirming
O.P.(CRL).No. 194/2021
the order of the Family court.
The Original Petition is allowed in part
accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
O.P.(CRL).No. 194/2021
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 194/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF M.C 285/2019 ON THE
FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
DATED 29.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER
SECTION 128 OF CR.P.C NUMBERED AS M.P
95/2020 DATED 23.07.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS FILE FOR
DELAY CONDONATION NUMBERED AS M.P
641(A)/2021 DATED 20.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR SETTING
ASIDE THE EX PARTY ORDER NUMBERED AS
M.P 641/2021 DATED 20.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 THE OBJECTION FILED TO M.C. 285/2019 IS
DATED 20.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 THE OBJECTION TO M.P 95/2020 DATED
2.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
FAMILY COURT, DATED 10.03.2021 IN MP.
641/2021 AND M.P 641(A)/2021.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE TIME EXTENSION
PETITION FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT
DATED 31.03.2021.
EXHIBIT P9 PETITIONER IS PRODUCING A PHOTO TAKEN
OF THE A DIARY OF THE FAMILY COURT
ERNAKULAM DATED NIL IN M.P.95/2020.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
