Petitioner challenged an order awarding maintenance and fair provision to a divorced wife. The High Court declined interference, finding no manifest injustice or wrong application of law by lower courts regarding the petitioner's capacity to pay.
Petition dismissed along with all pending interlocutory applications.
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 A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2014/12TH ASHADHA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 389 of 2013 ()
CRL.RP. 4/2011 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
MC 11/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
NAZER ABDULLA
S/O.ABDULLA, ADHIKARATHU VEEDU, THACHAMBARA MANNARKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S
SRI.K.A.VINOD ANTONY
SRI. SIBY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
D/O.HANEEFA, THAYYIL VEEDU, MUNDUR PALAKKAD-678592.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
MS.ANILA K.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JUSTIN JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.389/2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2012 MADE IN CRL.RP NO.4/2011 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS, PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2010 MADE IN M.C. NO.11 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 14.2.2013 OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, FOR RUPEES ONE LAKH BY THE PETITIONER IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
Crl.M.C. No.389 of 2013
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2014.
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Cr.P.C.”).
Petitioner married the respondent as per the rites and rituals under the Islamic Law on 30.11.1986. After more than 19 years of marital life, petitioner pronounced talaq on 18.05.2006 severing the marital relationship. Two issues were born in the wedlock. After divorce, the respondent/wife approached the court below under the provisions of the Act claiming `25,000/- as cash and value of gold ornaments given at the time of marriage. Further, maintenance during the iddat period and reasonable and fair provision and maintenance were also claimed.
Crl.MC No.389 of 2013 2
10,000/- and also the value of ten sovereigns of gold ornaments to a tune of 1,00,000/-. 9,000/- was allowed as maintenance during iddat, for three months and 3,00,000/- was allowed as reasonable and fair provision and maintenance. Aggrieved by that finding of the trial court, the petitioner took up the matter before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order passed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
Crl.MC No.389 of 2013 3
petitioner had divorced the respondent by pronouncing talaq. According to him, she was untruthful to him and had extramarital relationship. However, this contention is strongly denied by the learned counsel for the respondent. No material is produced to fortify this contention of the petitioner, except the information given to him by their son. In the absence of any reliable evidence on this point, I cannot find fault with the authorities below in finding that the divorced wife is entitled to get maintenance.
4
Crl.MC No.389 of 2013
time. Fact that the chance of re-marriage of respondent is bleak was also considered by the court below. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
In the result, the petition is without any merit and hence it is
dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Court committed an error in confirming maintenance awarded to a divorced wife under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 482 CrPC against findings of fact regarding the petitioner's paying capacity.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
NAZER ABDULLA
SUNITHA
STATE OF KERALA
A.HARIPRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
