Sulfikker vs Shameera
2023 Latest Caselaw 10268 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        Thursday, the 21st day of September 2023 / 30th Bhadra, 1945
                        CRL.REV.PET NO. 1273 OF 2019
             CRA 41/2018 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM
  MC 34/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

     SULFIKKER, AGED 44, S/O.EBRAHIMKUTTY, SULFI MANZIL, KANNANALLOOR,
     THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691576.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER, 2ND RESPONDENT & STATE:

  1. SHAMEERA, AGED 33, D/O.ABDUL KAREEM, ROADVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
     MUTTAKKAVU, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 576.
  2. HILAL, S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, VILAYIL PADINJATTATHIL, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE,
     PERUMPUZHA, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM - 695 504.
  3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
     KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

     This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for orders upon perusing
this petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.LIJU.M.P, Advocate for
the petitioner and of Sri.M.RAJESH, Advocate for the first respondent and
of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the third respondent, the Court passed the
following:
                                       GOPINATH P., J.
                            ========================
                                  Crl.R.P.No.1273 of 2019
                           ========================
                         Dated this the 21st day of September, 2023


                                             ORDER

The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would

submit that though this Court had only stayed the payment of

compensation of Rs.3 lakhs (directed to be paid in terms of the

appellate court judgment) and in spite of the fact that there is a

specific direction that the maintenance shall be paid at this rate of

Rs.4,000/- per month as directed by the trial court and

confirmed by the appellate court, the petitioner has not paid any

amount of maintenance to the 1st respondent.

Taking the above submission into consideration, it is

directed that if the Revision Petitioner has not paid the amount of

maintenance (in respect of which there is no stay), it will be open

to the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate proceedings for execution of

the orders passed by the courts below. If such a petition for

execution is filed, the court below shall take expeditious steps to

execute the order, to the extent there is no stay, as directed above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE DK

21-09-2023 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar