Dismissed

Y.M.Basheer v. Nahukannu Ramla Beevi

Kerala HC20 Mar 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/491/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging an appellate court's order in a case under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. The lower courts had granted maintenance, fair provision, and a claim for gold ornaments based on evidence. The revision court found no ground for interference with the concurrent findings of the courts

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed and the order of the appellate court confirming the maintenance, fair provision, and acharam was affirmed.

Y.M.Basheer Vs Nahukannu Ramla Beevi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU TUESDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2007 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1928

¶3

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 491 of 1996()

¶4

----------------------------CRRP.29/1993 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM MC.14/1991 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/CR.PETITIONER

¶6

¶7

M.M.BASHEER, PUTHENVILA VEEDU KUNNUVARAM, MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVALAM VILLAGE CHIRAYANKIL TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.ABDUL LATEEF, S/O. KUNJI MUHAMMED RESIDING AT THEKKE ATHIKOTTU PARAMBATH VENGERI P.O., CALICUT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.GOVINDAN NAIR SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS: REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶10

¶11

NUHUKANNU RAMLA BEEVI NAJEENA MANZIL EDAVILAKATHU MURI VAILOOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶12

BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.) SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.R.P.No.491/1996

¶16

ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.1882/1996 IN CRL.R.P.NO.491/1996

¶17

DISMISSED

¶18

20.3.2007

¶19

Sd/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶22

K.R.UDAYABHANU, J

¶23

¶24

CRL.R.P.No.491 of 1996

¶25

--------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2007

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The revision petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.14/91 instituted by the respondent bank seeking reliefs under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. A sum of Rs.2,15,500/- was claimed altogether, Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance during the Iddath period, Rs.1,00,000/- towards fair provision, Rs.30,000/- towards Acharam amount, Rs.25,000/- paid to the counter petitioner for procuring job abroad, Rs.500/- towards costs of watch given to the petitioner, Rs.5,000/- Mahar agreed to be paid and Rs.40,000/- towards the cost of gold ornaments allegedly appropriated by the counter petitioner.

¶28

The appellate court in revision applications filed by both sides disposed of the matter, allowing the application in part filed by the petitioner and directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,500/- as maintenance for Iddath period, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as reasonable and fair provision and Rs.40,000/-

¶29

CRRP494/96

¶30

Page numbers

¶31

towards the value of the 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.501/- under Section 31(b) of the Act towards acharam amount received.

¶32

The evidence adduced in the matter consisted the testimony of PW's 1 to 3 and Exts. P1 to P6, at the instance of the petitioner in the M.C. and CPW's 1 and 2 and Exts. B1 and B2 produced at the instance of the counter petition/revision petitioner. It has came out from evidence adduced in the matter that the revision petitioner is employed in the Middle East and his monthly salary is over Rs.20,000/- per month and that he has got also immovable properties from which he is deriving income. The courts have concurrently found that the evidence adduced in the matter do established the case of the respondent/petitioner in the M.C. The courts below have considered the evidence adduced in the matter in a meticulous manner. It is found that the amount claimed towards fair provision is only reasonable. The amount claimed towards the value of 20 sovereigns as Rs.40,000/- was allowed as claimed. The rest of the claims were also allowed with proportionate reduction considering the evidence adduced in the matter. In view of the concurrent

¶33

Page numbers

¶34

CRRP494/96

¶35

findings of the court below, I find that there is no scope for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this court.

¶36

In the circumstances revision petition is dismissed. The order of the appellate court is confirmed.

¶37

K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE

¶38

csl

Y.M.Basheer v. Nahukannu Ramla Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.M.Basheer v. Nahukannu Ramla Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balan Vs State of Kerala

Anto Vs State of Kerala

V.G.Syamkumar Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Ajithkumar Vs State of Kerala

D.a.a.Rajan Vs T.v.Sankaran Kutty

Prabhakaran Vs Excise Inspector, Kannur