Partly allowed

Abdul Rahiman M,v. v. Saleena

Kerala HC19 Nov 2011Crl.MC/3137/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reviewed an order where the Sessions Judge allowed a divorced wife's revision and dismissed the husband's revision due to his alleged non-deposit of the awarded provision and mahar. The Court quashed the dismissal concerning the husband but restored the wife's revision for disposal with directions on reappreciation of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the petitioner's revision for non-deposit is quashed; the wife's revision is retained for disposal by the Sessions Court with directions to reappreciate evidence upon receipt of f

Abdul Rahiman M,v. Vs Saleena — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3137 of 2006()

¶6

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

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRRP.132/01 AND CRRP.147/2001 OF II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD MC.63/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI

¶8

PETITIONER(S): REVN. PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

ABDUL RAHIMAN M.V., S/O. MOHAMMED, MELEPAT VALAPPU, KODANAD DESOM, MEZHATHOOR AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KABEER, AGED 27 YRS, S/O. MUHAMMED, KYPANCHERI HOUSE, PALLAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & STATE

¶13

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

¶14

1. SALEENA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. MOHAMMED, VARAMANGALATHUR, KALLADATHUR DESOM, KUMARANELLUR AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK.

¶15

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

¶16

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH DEV

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

CRMC NO. 3137/2006

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.NO. 63/99 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI, DATED 06.09.2001.

¶23

ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2006 OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD DIVISION IN Crl.R.P. Nos. 132/01 AND 147/01.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.3137 of 2006

¶29

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2011

¶30

Order

¶31

This Crl.M.C. was filed in the year 2006. The petition was filed by the former wife in the year 1999 claiming maintenance for the iddah period, reasonable and fair provision and also value of gold ornaments etc. The learned Magistrate allowed reasonable and fair provision, and also maintenance for the iddah period. That court also ordered to pay the value of the mahar - three sovereigns. But the claim for value of 50 sovereigns and Rs.30,000/- stated to have been given to the former husband was disallowed. As against the claim which was disallowed, the divorced wife filed revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. Similarly, challenging the other part of the order, the former husband also filed revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. In the course of argument in those revision petitions, the former husband requested for remand of the matter. Considering all the aspects of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge passed Annexure B conditional order which says

¶32

Crl.M.C.3137/2006

¶33

¶34

that if the former husband who is the petitioner herein fails to deposit the amount which was ordered to be paid by the learned Magistrate, his revision will stand dismissed. A further direction is also seen forming part of the very same sentence, which is to the effect, that the revision filed by the respondent-wife will be allowed. That part of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge may not be allowable. The non-deposit of the amount by the petitioner herein may be a justification to order dismissal of the revision petition filed by him. But the revision petition filed by the former wife, if it is to be allowed, can be done only on reappreciation of the evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though 50% of the amount ordered has already been deposited by the petitioner, the remaining 50% of the amount was not deposited. The amount ordered by the learned Magistrate was Rs.2 lakhs for reasonable and fair provision, Rs.15,000/- as maintenance for iddah period and Rs.9000/- towards mahar (amount payable to the value of 3 sovereigns of gold). Considering all the aspects, that part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate has to be sustained for the reason that the direction to deposit was not fully complied

¶35

Crl.M.C.3137/2006

¶36

¶37

with. But the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge allowing Crl.R.P.No.132 of 2001 is set aside. Crl.R.P.No.147 of 2001 alone shall be treated as dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence Crl.R.P.No.132 of 2001 shall stand restored and the same shall be disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge in accordance with law.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶39

reliable information he has received is that the parties have settled the matter subsequent to the disposal of the two revision petitions which were pending before the Sessions Court. If so, the parties are at liberty to make their submissions before the learned Sessions Judge and to have the order modified accordingly. It is open to the parties to apply to the Sessions Judge for seeking appropriate reliefs.

¶40

The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.

¶41

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶42

srd

¶43

Crl.M.C.3137/2006 4

¶44

Crl.M.C.3137/2006 5

Abdul Rahiman M,v. v. Saleena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahiman M,v. v. Saleena

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

K.P.Sunilkumar Vs Bindu M.V

Ajidas Vs N.K.Subidha

Lissamma T Vs the State of Kerala and Another

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Mani Swamy Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Najeeb.a.M.