The High Court dismissed a Criminal Misc. case petition filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order awarding fair provision and maintenance. The court held the petition was not maintainable given an earlier revision regarding the same enhancement was pending.
Petition dismissed; hearing on adjournment submission rejected.
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 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/24TH ASWINA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 2784 of 2012 (C)
IN CRRP.91/2008 of ADDL.D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD IN MC.24/2007 of J.M.F.C., PATTAMBI
PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER:-
K.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, S/O. HAMSA, KALAPRAMBIL VEEDU, MATTAYI, VALLAPPUZHA, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENTS / STATE : -
1. SAIFUNNEESSA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED KABIR, KOLLATHU VEETIL, KARALMANNA AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK - 679 101.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 2784 of 2012 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
| ANNEXURE A1 : | A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL |
|---|---|
| FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PATTAMBI, IN M.C. NO. 24/07 DATED | |
| 30.07.08. |
ANNEXURE A2 : A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD IN Crl. R.P. NO. 91/08 DATED 21.11.2011.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
DMR/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.
Crl.M.C. NO. 2784 of 2012
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2012
ORDER
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed a revision challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge in the revision moved by the respondent/wife granting enhancement of her claim for fair provision and maintenance. Still, the counsel seeks adjournment of the hearing on the petition for a period of two weeks, to explore the possibility of a settlement. That submission made for adjournment cannot be accepted. When the petition came up earlier on the submission made by the counsel that he intends to prefer a revision against the order allowing enhancement of the claim of the wife, for that alone, hearing on petition was adjourned by a period of ten days. Petitioner can no doubt explore the possibility of settlement in the proceedings emanating from the revision filed by him. Present petition is filed under Section 482 of
Crl.M.C. NO. 2784 of 2012
2
the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, he seeks to challenge the order of the magistrate awarding fair provision and maintenance to the wife after his challenges raised thereto had been negatived by the Sessions Judge in revision.
Petition is not entertainable and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE.
DMR /-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to entertain a revision petition challenging maintenance enhancement already subject to an earlier revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Muhammed Musthafa
Saifunneessa
State of Kerala
S.S.Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
