Dismissed

Muhammed Musthafa @ Musthafa v. K.K.Sumayya

Kerala HC6 Jun 2008Crl.MC/1592/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application was filed against a maintenance order under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The petitioner argued the courts failed to appreciate income evidence and that the marriage subsisted. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction requires preventing abuse of process or securing justice ends and

What the court decided

AI extract

Muhammed Musthafa @ Musthafa Vs K.K.Sumayya — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 1592 of 2004()

¶5

------------------------MC.14/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA CRRP.13/2003 & 26/03 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI

¶6

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA @ MUSTHAFA, S/O.ALIYAMMU HAJI, ALADY HOUSE, NEAR ETHEEMKHANA P.O.EDATHANATTU KARA (VIA) ALANALOOR, MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST.,REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL SALAM,S/O ALIYAMMU HAJI,MANNARKAD PALAKKAD, NATTUKKAL POLICE STATION.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶10

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶11

¶12

K.K. SUMAYYA, D/O. ABOOBACKER, KALAKANDATHIL HOUSE, MULLIYAKURISSI, SANTHAPURAM P.O.., PATTIKAD, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MELATOOR POLICE STATION UNITS

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R1

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI S.U.NAZAR FOR R2

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER ON CRL.M.A.6775/04 IN CRL.M.C.1592/04

¶18

DISMISSED

¶19

6.6.08 SD/- (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

¶20

M.C.HARI RANI, J.

¶21

-----------------------------------------------------

¶22

CRL.M.C.No. 1592 OF 2004

¶23

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF JUNE, 2008

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Crl.M.C. is filed against the order in M.C.No.14/2000

¶26

passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II. Perinthalmanna and the common order in Crl.R.P.Nos.13/03 and 26/03 of the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. The M.C. was filed by the respondent herein who is the divorced wife of the petitioner, under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. PWs 1 to 3 were examined before the learned Magistrate on the side of the petitioner in M.C.No.14/2000 and Exhibits P1 to P3 were marked. The respondent/husband was examined as CPW1. The main contention raised by the petitioner herein who was the respondent before the Magistrate's Court was that he has not divorced the petitioner in the M.C. and the marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is even now subsisting. But, the learned Magistrate did not accept the said version and ordered to pay Rs.1,15,000/= as fair and reasonable

¶27

CRL.M.C.No.1592/04

¶28

-2-

¶29

provision for future maintenance and also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month for the expenses of Iddat period which will come to Rs.6,000/-. Thereafter, both the petitioner and the respondent filed Crl.R.P.Nos.13/03 and 26/03 before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Manjeri and as per common order dated 13.8.2003, Crl.R.P.No.13/03 was allowed in part and the amount payable by the respondent to the petitioner therein was fixed as Rs.2,16,000/-. Crl.R.P.No.26/03 preferred by the petitioner/husband was dismissed.

¶30

It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this petition that the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that there is no documentary evidence to prove the income of the petitioner that he was getting monthly salary of Rs.2,300 riyal from his job. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was working at Jeddah and was earning sufficient income and capacity to pay the amount claimed by the respondent as the divorced wife. Though the petitioner herein denied the divorce, both the courts below did not accept the said version based on the evidence tendered by PWs 1 to 3 and Exhibits P2 and P3. Those concurrent finding of both the courts were on the basis of the evidence tendered by the parties regarding the disputed facts and after considering all the

¶31

CRL.M.C.No.1592/04

¶32

-3-

¶33

relevant materials produced by both the parties. The evidence tendered by the petitioner before the lower court as CPW1 was also considered.

¶34

When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether the appreciation of it by the trial Judge was proper or not. This Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relating to cognizable offence to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The evidence adduced by the parties were considered by the trial court as well as the revisional court. So, the prayer in this petition will not come within the parameters for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶35

In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

¶36

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

¶37

dsn

Muhammed Musthafa @ Musthafa v. K.K.Sumayya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Muhammed Musthafa @ Musthafa v. K.K.Sumayya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Christopher Vs State of Kerala

Bharathan Vs State of Kerala

Raghavan Vs Geetha

D.W.Satheesh Vs Dr.Y.Raja Retnam

Sukumaran Vs the State of Kerala

Peethambaran Vs Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class,Adimaly