1. A convict, who is undergoing sentence, imposed on default of payment of maintenance ordered under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short ‘the Code”}, has sent a petition from jail challenging the punishment imposed against him on two applications moved by the claimants/respondents, his wife and children. Orders in C.M.P.No.22/08 and 1443/10 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kasaragod imposing sentence of imprisonment against the petitioner, for the terms fixed thereunder, are challenged in this petition. Petition sent by him has been numbered as a revision as aforesaid.

2. Since the petition has been sent from jail, I have appointed Advocate Smt.Leela to assist the court. Notice was ordered to be served on the counsel, who appeared for the respondents in the Family Court, directing service through that court. Such service has been effected as seen from the report of the Judge of the Family Court, but the respondents have not entered appearance.

3. Revision petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to the respondents his wife and children, at different rates, which together come to Rs.1,900/- per month. On the applications moved by the respondents stating that the amount due has not been paid, the court below (Family Court, Kasargod) has sentenced him to imprisonment. For the amount due towards the period specified in C.M.P.No.22/08 he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 months. Under the order passed in C.M.P.No.1443/10 sentence of imprisonment imposed extends to a period of 19 months, as the arrears covered by that proceedings are stated to be for a period of 19 months.

4. Records being called for from the court below and report obtained from the Superintendent, central Prison, it is noticed that the revision petitioner has been imposed imprisonment in another proceeding also, that too, relating to the default in payment of maintenance, in C.M.P.No.654/09, for a period of 10 months. The terms of imprisonment imposed against him in all the aforesaid three CMPs together cover a period of 40 months.

5. Going through the petition sent by the convict from the prison, I find, he has questioned the orders in all the three CMPs aforementioned awarding punishment for various terms which altogether cover a period of 40 months. With the petition he has enclosed only copies of the orders in C.M.P.Nos.22/08 and 1443/10. As against the order in each CMP imposing sentence of imprisonment, it is necessary that separate revision has to be filed. However, the challenge raised in the revision relates to imprisonment covering 40 months, ordered in three CMPs, producing orders of two CMPs alone. Non-filing of revision separately and non-production of the order in one of the CMPs relating to the imprisonment imposed, has to be condoned in the given facts of the case, where the petitioner is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment and revision taken on file on a petition sent by him from jail. The legality, propriety and correctness of orders passed in C.M.P.Nos.22/08, 654/09 and 1443/10, all of them, require to be considered in the present revision, to avoid miscarriage of justice.

6. In C.M.P.No.22/08 arrears of maintenance were claimed as due for 12 months from 04.01.2007 to 03.01.2008. Order passed by the court below would indicate that there was part payment of Rs.2,000/- pending the proceedings and the balance outstanding on the claim was Rs.20,800/-. Still, holding that an amount for 12 months remained to be paid sentence of imprisonment of 10 months was awarded.

7. In C.M.P.No.654/09 arrears of maintenance related to the period from 01.03.2008 to 28.02.2009. A portion of the amount on the arrears appears to have been paid during the pendency of the proceedings. The order of the court below would show that the arrears for 10 months were due, and therefore, the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 months directing him to serve out that sentence afte