IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1580 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2015 IN MC NO.4 OF

2015 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.09.2016 IN CRA NO.444 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/S:

1 RONALT K.R S/O RAPHAEL, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAYIKULAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM.

2 SOSAMMA W/O RAPHAEL, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAYIKULAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM.

BY ADVS.

SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT/S:

1 NISHA SEBASTIAN D/O SEBASTIAN T.X, THEKKUMPURATH HOUSE, PURAKKELIL, NETTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM, 682 040.

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.A.MARTIN ROY J.RAMKUMAR M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN(K/732/1989)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

…....….............................. Crl.R.P..No.1580 of 2016 …........................................................ Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2024

ORDER

Respondents in MC No.4 of 2015 on the files of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam are the petitioners. They suffered an order in the MC. A protection order and an order to pay monitory reliefs including maintenance was passed. In the appeal they have filed, the additional Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam interfered with the trial court order to a limited extent. While the protection order and the order to pay Rs.8.5 lakhs to the 1^st respondent was confirmed, the order to pay maintenance was modified. The amount of monthly maintenance entitled by the 1^st respondent and her child was refixed as Rs.4,000/-. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

There is no representation for the petitioners. For the last several postings, the petitioners or their counsel did not turn up to make their submissions.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that the order dated 18.11.2016 that Rs.1,50,000/- should be paid as condition for the stay has not been complied with.

In the said circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed for default.

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE Dxy The final order dated 21.06.2024 in Crl.R.P.No.1580 of 2016 is corrected as shown below, vide order dated 24.10.2024 in Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2024 in Crl.R.P.No.158 of 2016.

''The 1^st respondent in the revision petition has filed this application stating that a wrong submission was happened to be made on 21.06.2024 and recorded by this Court is required to be corrected.

It is stated that in terms of the order of this Court dated

18.11.2016, Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to her by the revision petitioners. It was inadvertently submitted that such a payment was not made. Hence, the applicant seeks to correct the said mistake crept in the order dated 21.06.2024.

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was already paid by the revision petitioner is recorded and the observation in the order dated

21.06.2024 stands corrected accordingly.''

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar