Dismissed

T.K. Hairunnisa v. T. Nazimudheen

Kerala HC1 Oct 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/827/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court final hearing on two criminal revision petitions challenging a Magistrate's maintenance order under the 1986 Muslim Divorce Act. Due to the absence of counsel, the Court reviewed records and found no perversity in the award, dismissing both petitions.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Revision Petitions (827/2001 and 1620/2002) were dismissed; the Magistrate's orders upholding maintenance at Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 4,500 stand affirmed.

T.K. Hairunnisa Vs T. Nazimudheen — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 827 of 2001 ( )

¶6

-----------------------------------------`

¶7

MC. NO.15/2000 OF THE JUDL. IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY.

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S):PETITIONER IN MC.15/2000.

¶9

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

¶10

T.K.HAIRUNNISA, D/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, 32 YEARS, KALATHIL HOUSE, POST NETTOOR, KANNUR.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.VIJAYAN SMT.K.V.JAYALAKSHMY

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN MC. 15/2000

¶13

T.NAZIMUDHEEN, S/O.AHAMMED HANEEFA, 35 YEARS, CHETTAMCOON, THALASSERY AMSOM, VADIKKAL DESOM, THALASSERY.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-10-2012, ALONG WITH CRRP. 1620 OF 2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

tss

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

Crl.R.P.Nos.827/2001 & 1620/2002

¶20

==================

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2012 O R D E R

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.827/2001 is filed by the wife in a petition under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986, challenging the orders of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thalassery in Maintenance Case No.15/2000, whereby the Magistrate directed the husband, who is the respondent in the Revision Petition, to pay to the petitioner an amount of 75,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision for maintenance and 4,500/- towards maintenance during idda period. The petitioner is challenging the order contending that the amount awarded is too low.

¶23

The husband also challenged that order by filing Crl.R.P.No.60/2001 before the District and Sessions Judge, Thalassery. When Crl.R.P.No. 827/2001 was taken up, this Court by order dated 19.9.2002 withdrew the said Criminal Revision Petition to this Court for hearing and disposal along Crl.R.P.No. 827/2001. Accordingly, the said Criminal Revision Petition was renumbered as Crl.R.P.No.1620/2002.

¶24

Crl.r.p.827/11 & c.c - : 2 :-

¶25

When the two Criminal Revision Petitions were taken up today, neither the counsel for the wife nor the counsel for the husband is present before me. Nor are the counsel. Therefore, I have considered the matter on the basis of the records available. On going through the records and the judgment, I find that the Magistrate has passed the order on the basis of the evidence available and fixed the quantum on the basis of the income of the husband and the necessities of the wife. I could not persuade myself to find any perversity in the reasoning in the judgment of the court below. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Magistrate. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed.

¶26

Sd/sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶27

///True copy///

¶28

P.A. to Judge

T.K. Hairunnisa v. T. Nazimudheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K. Hairunnisa v. T. Nazimudheen

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

Chandy Joseph Vs Maharashtra Appex Corporation Ltd.

Vincent Mathew Alias Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs S.I. of Police

Annur Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs Ramachandran