The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging maintenance orders under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. It upheld the lower courts' rejection of a disputed agreement and affirmed the award.
Crl.M.C. No. 527 of 2006 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT
TUESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 24TH MAGHA 1928
Crl.MC.No. 527 of 2006() -----------------------CRRP.5/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE MC.11/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI
PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/RSPONDENT.
PAKKU, S/O.SOPPI, AGED 52 YEARS, VAYOTH VEEDU, MELADI AMSOM, KEEZHOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.K.B.SAJEESH SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.C.S.SUNIL SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.M.PRAVEESH
RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER.
BY P.P. SRI.S.U. NAZAR.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R. BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.NO. 527 OF 2006
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner has suffered an order directing him to pay an amount of Rs.1,90,500/- under Sec.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short `the Act') to his divorced wife – the claimant/the 1st respondent herein.
CRL.M.C.NO. 527 OF 2006 -: 2 :-
C.P.W.1. C.P.Ws.2 to 5 were also examined. Ext.D1 agreement allegedly executed by P.W.1 was also relied on by the petitioner herein.
CRL.M.C.NO. 527 OF 2006 -: 3 :-
are:
(i) P.W.1 has specifically denied Ext.D1 agreement.
(ii) The expert - P.W.3, and his report Ext.P10 also support the conclusion that P.W.1 has not signed Ext.D1.
(iii) There is no reference to Ext.D1 in earliest document which must have been there if such an agreement had been entered into.
(iv) No relative or person close to P.W.1 is even shown as an attestor in Ext.D1.
(v) Ext.D1 is not produced along with the counter statement.
In these circumstances, the courts below did not place any crucial reliance on the evidence of C.P.Ws.1 to 3.
CRL.M.C.NO. 527 OF 2006 -: 4 :-
for not relying on Ext.D1. Suffice it to say that I concur with the concurrent conclusion of the courts below that Ext.D1 has not been proved satisfactorily and no safe reliance can be placed on Ext.D1. That conclusion on facts does not at all warrant interference by invoking the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
CRL.M.C.NO. 527 OF 2006 -: 5 :-
amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that no interference with the quantum fixed by the courts below is also justified or warranted.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the lower courts' finding that an agreement was not genuine.
Whether a contrary argument made by the petitioner bars him from claiming his wife's unchaste conduct as a defence to maintenance liability.
Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower courts is just and proper requiring interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PAKKU
NAGATH SUBAIDA
THE STATE OF KERALA
R. BASANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
