Heard. It is seen that the revision petitioner has already undergone the sentence imposed by the trial court in enforcement of the maintenance order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision has thus become infructuous. What is challenged in this revision is the legality of successive sentence in enforcement of the order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This legal question was referred to Division Bench. Accordingly, a Division Bench of this Court decided a batch of revision petitions involving the very same question, by order dated 18.11.2013. The decision of the Division Bench is that successive sentence in enforcement of maintenance order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quite legal and that there is nothing wrong in sentencing the respondent to different terms for different instances of default. It is held by the Division Bench that imprisonment undergone on previous occasions is not a sufficient cause to avoid further imprisonment for further default in the subsequent period. In the above circumstances, this revision filed on a complaint received from the Central Prison, Kannur is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.
ma /True copy/ Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE P.S to Judge