Disposed

Rafkhan Beevi v. Uwais Ashraf Sayed Hydroosi & Another

Kerala HC8 Nov 2011Crl.MC/3605/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to recall the petitioner as a witness in a maintenance matter. The Court allowed the recall request pending the current proceeding but directed that no further recall petitions be entertained and imposed a disposal deadline for the underlying case.

What did the court decide?

Recall of petitioner allowed with a direction to dispose of the underlying maintenance case by 12.12.2011 and a prohibition on future recall petitions.

Rafkhan Beevi Vs Uwais Ashraf Sayed Hydroosi & Another — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 3605 of 2011()

¶5

-------------------------------------CMP.2050/2011 IN MC.23/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PERINTALMANNA. ....................

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

RAFKHAN BEEVI, D/O. MUSTHAFA THANGAL PUTHIYAMALIYACKAL HOUSE PERINTALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL, SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

1. UWAIS ASHRAF SAYED HYDROOSI S/O. ASHRAF SAYYED HYDROOSI CHERKKARA PADUVINGAL HOUSE AL-HYDROOSIA, PATTIKKAD P.O., MUDIKKODE VILLAGE, PANANCHERI PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR-680 652.

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM, SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN, SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S. SURESH.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 3605 of 2011

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶20

ANNEXURE A	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE IST RESPONDENT AS CMP NO.2050/2011.
ANNEXURE B	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CMP NO. 2050/2011.
ANNEXURE C	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2011 PASSED BY THE J.F.C.M. COURT-1, PERINTALMANNA IN C.M.P.NO.2050/2011 IN M.C. NO.23/2010.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

Crl.M.C. No.3605 of 2011

¶27

Dated this the 8^th day of November 2011

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This petition is filed by the petitioner in M.C.No.23/2010. Her claim is under Sec.3(i) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. It was filed in the year 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her evidence was recorded by the court long back. Thereafter, it was re-opened on two occasions earlier. Now, a petition has been filed to recall PW1 (petitioner herein) to be examined again. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent goes on filing petition after petition only to put the petitioner in difficulty. It is also pointed out that as per the provisions of the Act, if a petition is filed it has to be disposed of within one month, but now, 9 months have elapsed. The dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent should not be allowed and hence the petition to recall PW1 should be set aside, the learned counsel submits. The learned

¶30

Crl.M.C. No.3605 of 2011

¶31

-: 2 :-

¶32

counsel for the respondent submits that for recalling PW1, cost was ordered to be paid and that the request is made not to put the petitioner in difficulty. It is further submitted that PW1 is to be recalled only to put certain questions with regard to the evidence given by her in another proceeding.

¶33

It is for the learned counsel appearing for the parties to collect all materials before starting cross examination. The practice of recalling witness again and again should not be entertained. However, since the petition to recall PW1 has already been allowed, I do not want to interrupt that proceeding. But it is made clear that the court should not entertain such petitions in this case here after. It is also directed that the M.C. Should be disposed of on or before 12.12.2011.

¶34

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

¶35

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶36

Jvt

Rafkhan Beevi v. Uwais Ashraf Sayed Hydroosi & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafkhan Beevi v. Uwais Ashraf Sayed Hydroosi & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambikadevi Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Mohammed Vs K.Sadasivan

Paulose K.V. Vs State of Kerala

S.N.Raghuchandran Nair Vs State & Another

Rajendran @ Durrai Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh P. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another