Abdul Hameed A.M vs Sameera @ K.M Sameera
2022 Latest Caselaw 9570 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                CRL.REV.PET NO. 953 OF 2018
          CRA 10/2017 OF   SESSIONS COURT KASARAGOD
     MC 55/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I
                           ,KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

         ABDUL HAMEED A.M,
         S/O. ABBAS.K.M., RESIDING AT BAGDADIYA MANZIL,
         POST HIDAYATH NAGAR, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD
         TALUK.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
         SRI.E.K.AVINASH



RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1    SAMEERA @ K.M SAMEERA
         AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. MOHAMMED, POOYAKANDA
         HOUSE,ICHILAMGOD VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD
         TALUK.

    2    FATHIMA SWALIHA
         AGED 12 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL HAMEED, POYYAKANDA
         HOUSE,ICHILAMGOD VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD
         TALUK.

    3    KADEEJATH SULFIYA
         AGED 10 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL HAMEED, POYYAKANDA
         HOUSE,ICHILAMGOD VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD
         TALUK.
 Crl.R.P.No.953/2018

                                -:2:-

    4       MOHAMMED MISBAH, AGED 8 YEARS
            D/O. ABDUL HAMEED, POYYAKANDA HOUSE,ICHILAMGOD
            VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK,(RESPONDENT NO.2
            TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BYTHEIR NATURAL
            GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1).

    5       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT
            OF KERALA.

            BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE

            SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP




     THIS    CRIMINAL   REVISION    PETITION     HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION    ON   25.08.2022,      THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.953/2018

                                 -:3:-

                              ORDER

Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022

The revision petitioner is the husband of the 1 st respondent.

The remaining respondents are the children of the revision

petitioner and the 1st respondent. The respondents filed

M.C.No.55/2014 at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

Kasargod (for short 'the trial court') under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

2. The revision petitioner did not appear or contest the

MC. Hence an ex-parte order was passed. That order was

challenged before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod (for short 'the

appellate court'). The appellant court dismissed the appeal. The

husband now challenges both the order and judgment of the trial

court as well as the appellate court in this revision petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Sherry J. Thomas, the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner as Sri. Jawahar Jose, the

learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

4. As per the order passed by the trial court, the revision

petitioner was directed to pay ₹3,000/- each to the respondents Crl.R.P.No.953/2018

1 to 4. The order is dated 17/9/2014. The counsel for the

revision petitioner submitted that as on today, the revision

petitioner has paid a sum of ₹2,60,000/- towards maintenance.

But the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted

that the respondents have received only ₹2,04,000/- as on

today. Even if the contention of the revision petitioner is

accepted that he has paid ₹2,60,000/-, till there is huge arrears.

Since the order of the trial court is an ex-parte one, I am of the

view that an opportunity has to be given to the revision

petitioner to contest the MC on merits. However, he should pay

a substantial amount towards arrears of maintenance.

5. In the light of the above findings, the impugned order

and judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court are

hereby set aside, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The revision petitioner shall deposit a sum of

₹2,00,000/- towards maintenance within one month from today

at the trial court.

(b) The revision petitioner shall deposit another sum of

₹3,00,000/- within three months thereafter.

(c) On such deposit, the 1 st respondent is entitled to Crl.R.P.No.953/2018

withdraw the same.

(d) If any of the above deposit is defaulted, the impugned

order and judgment shall stand restored and the respondents are

free to enforce the same.

(e) The court below is directed to dispose of the MC itself

within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order.

(f) The deposit as indicated above will be subject to the

final outcome of the MC.

It is submitted by both sides that the matter can be sent for

mediation in the meanwhile. Hence, the learned Magistrate is

directed to refer the matter for mediation. If the matter is not

settled in mediation, the MC shall be disposed of as stated above.

Both parties shall appear at the trial court on 12/9/2022.

The revision petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp Crl.R.P.No.953/2018

APPENDIX OF CRL.R.P.NO.953/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/9/14 IN MC 55/14 OF JFCM I KASARAGOD

Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENNT IN CRL.A.NO.10/2017 OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD DATED 5/7/18