In a criminal revision, the petitioner sought to challenge a Sessions Court order reducing maintenance for a divorced wife. The High Court held the reduced amount was reasonable and dismissed the revision, stating no intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C was warranted.
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 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930
Crl.MC.No. 2820 of 2008() ------------------------CRL.R.P.NO.27/07 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI IN
MC.23/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI
PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
HASEENA BEGUM, D/O.HASSINAR MALAPPURAVAN HOUSE PADIKUNNU PO., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/STATE & RESPONDENT
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.BASANT, J
Crl.M.C No.2820 of 2008
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner had approached the learned Magistrate with a claim for amounts payable under Section 3 of the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. The learned Magistrate allowed the claim and directed payment of an amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.2,000 X 3) towards maintenance for the period of Iddat and an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.1,500/- X 10 X 12) as reasonable provision for the divorced wife. Thus in all she was held entitled to an amount of Rs.1,86,000/-.
Crl.M.C No.2820 of 2008
2
aggrieved by that order. The total amount has got reduced by Rs.12,000/- and this is not justified, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner.
me, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge was eminently justified in issuing a revised direction to pay an amount of Rs.1.74 lakhs as fair and reasonable provision and maintenance on divorce. The enhancement of the multiplicand and the reduction of the multiplier do in the circumstances of the case appear to be absolutely reasonable and justified. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can, need or deserves to be invoked to interfere with the impugned order.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C No.2820 of 2008 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Sessions Court's reduced amount of reasonable provision for a divorced wife under secular law.
Whether the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C deserves to be invoked in this revision matter.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Haseena Begum
State of Kerala
Muhammedali
R.Basant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
