Dismissed

Sulaika v. Sulaiman

Kerala HC13 Aug 2019Crl.MC/5442/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Miscell. Nos. 7753/2015 & 5442/2016 arising from Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act proceedings, the High Court observed that the Sessions Court balanced rival claims and may remain undisturbed and ordered dismissal of the petitions

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Cases 7753/2015 and 5442/2016 were dismissed; no enhancement of the provision amount granted by the Sessions Court.

Sulaika Vs Sulaiman — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.7753 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRRP 94/2014 DATED 07-102015 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 70/2012 DATED 29-11-2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALATHUR

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SULAIMAN, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.KATTUVAVA RAWTHER, PORUVANI VEEDU, AYAKKAD, VADAKKANCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SUNNY XAVIER SMT.C.P.PRETTY

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 SULAIKA, D/O.MUHAMMED RAWTHER, PALATHARA VEEDU, THOLANUR AMSOM , ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD 6780001

¶13

2 THE STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-18

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.08.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5442/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

::2::

¶17

Crl.M.C.Nos.7753/2015 & 5442/2016

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶21

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941

¶22

Crl.MC.No.5442 OF 2016

¶23

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRRP 94/2014 DATED 07-102015 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD

¶24

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 70/2012 DATED 29-11-2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,ALATHUR

¶25

PETITIONER/S:

¶26

SULAIKA, D/O. MUHAMMAD RAWTHER, AGED 45 YEARS, PALATHARA VEEDU, THOLANUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶27

BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶28

RESPONDENT/S:

¶29

1 SULAIMAN, S/O. KATTUVAVA RAWTHER, AGED 66 YEARS PORUVANI VEEDU, AYAKKAD, VADAKKENCHERY ALATHUR TALUK & PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶30

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

¶31

R1 BY ADV. SMT.PREMLATHA K.NAIR

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.08.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7753/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

::3::

¶34

Crl.M.C.Nos.7753/2015 & 5442/2016

¶35

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶36

Crl.M.C.Nos.7753/2015 & 5442/2016 --------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of August, 2019.

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

Since the matters are inter-related these cases are disposed of on the basis of this common order.

¶39

The Case projected in Crl.M.C.No.7753/2015 is as follows:

¶40

The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.7753/2015 is the respondent in M.C.No.70/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. The 1^st respondent herein is the petitioner in the abovesaid M.C. The said M.C was filed by the 1^st respondent herein under Sec.3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 claiming recovery of gold ornaments, Mahar, household appliances as well as for fair and reasonable provision for maintenance after the divorce. The petitioner herein had filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the petition. However, he admitted the marriage and Talaq. On the side of the 1^st respondent herein, PW-1 was examined and the petitioner herein was examined as CPW-1. The learned Magistrate thereafter

¶41

::4::

¶42

Crl.M.C.Nos.7753/2015 & 5442/2016

¶43

passed the impugned order directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- towards fair and reasonable provision. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein had preferred Crl.R.P.No.94/2014 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Palakkad. The Additional Sessions Court allowed the Revision Petition in part directing payment of a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards fair and reasonable provision. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad, in Crl.R.P.No.94/2014 & M.C.No.70/2012, the husband has filed the instant Crl.M.C.No.7753/2015 has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶44

“................... to call for the records leading to Annexure A2 Order dated 07/10/2015 in Crl.R.P.No.94 of 2014 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad Division and the Annexure A1 Order in M.C.No.70 of 2012 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur and set aside the said orders of Courts below to the extent disputed herein insofar as it went against the Petitioner herein and dismiss aforesaid M.C.No.70 of 2012 and allow this Criminal M.C with cost throughout.”

¶45

Whereas the wife would contend that the amounts

¶46

granted in the abovesaid impugned order are on the lower side and the same should be enhanced and that she has filed Crl.M.C.No.5442/2016 praying for interference with the said impugned orders on the ground that the amounts granted therein are on the lower side and the amount should be enhanced.

¶47

::5::

¶48

Crl.M.C.Nos.7753/2015 & 5442/2016

¶49

Whereas the contention of the husband is that the amount granted in the impugned order is on the higher side and the same should be lowered.

¶50

After hearing both sides and taking into account the pleadings and materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Sessions Court in passing the revisional order dated 7.10.2015 in Crl.R.P.No.94/2014 has balanced the rival claims and has arrived at a fair and just decision. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the said considered decision taken by the Sessions Court. The husband is obliged to comply with the directions and orders of the Sessions Court in the impugned order in Crl.R.P.No.94/2014.

¶51

With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.Cs will stand dismissed.

¶52

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶53

bkn/-

¶54

::6::

¶55

Crl.M.C.Nos.7753/2015 & 5442/2016

¶56

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 7753/2015

¶57

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

ANNEXURE P1

¶59

ANNEXURE A1:-TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC NO 70 OF 2012 PASSED BY THE JFCM COURT, ALATHUR

¶60

ANNEXURE P2

¶61

ANNEXURE A2:-TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 7/10/2015 IN CRRP NO 94 OF 2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT PALAKKAD DIVISION

¶62

::7::

¶63

Crl.M.C.Nos.7753/2015 & 5442/2016

¶64

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5442/2016

¶65

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶66

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26/03/2012 IN MC 70/2012 ON THE FILES OF JFMC,ALATHUR

¶67

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/11/2014 IN MC NO 70/2012 ON THE FILE OF JFMC,ALATHUR

¶68

ANNEXURE III

¶69

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/10/2015 IN CRL RP NO 94/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

Sulaika v. Sulaiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulaika v. Sulaiman

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

Alias, Vs State of Kerala

Anandkumar Vs State of Kerala

Usman.E.K. @ Usman Darimi Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Santhosh N.S Vs State of Kerala

Sulaiman Vs Sulaika

Manju a.Nair Vs State of Kerala