Kerala High Court
Muhammed C Basheer vs Hafsa on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 283 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 228/2020 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,MOOVATTUPUZHA
CMP 1013/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
REVISION PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED C BASHEER
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. BASHEER,
CHIRAKKAKUDY HOUSE, KANDAMTHARA,
VENGOLA VILLAGE,, PIN - 683556
BY ADV SIRAJ ABDUL SALAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 HAFSA
AGED 29 YEARS
W/O MUHAMMED C BASHEER, CHIRAKKAKUDY HOUSE,
KANDAMTHARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, (D/O ABDUL
JABBAR, VANIYAPPURAYIL HOUSE THODUPUZHA EAST
P.O., KUMBAMKALLU KARA, KARKKODU VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 685585
2 MARIYAM
AGED 8 YEARS
D/O MINOR VANIYAPPURAYIL HOUSE THODUPUZHA EAST
P.O., KUMBAMKALLU KARA, KARKKODU VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 685585
3 SAIDH
AGED 6 YEARS
MINOR S/O MUHAMMED C BASHEER VANIYAPPURAYIL
HOUSE THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., KUMBAMKALLU KARA,
KARKKODU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN -
685585
Crl.Rev.P .No.283 of 2022
..2..
4 YAHIYA
AGED 2 YEARS
MINOR, S/O MUHAMMED BASHEER VANIYAPPURAYIL HOUSE
THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., KUMBAMKALLU KARA, KARKKODU
VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 685585
5 BASHEER
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O ENIKUTTY, CHIRAKKAKKUDY HOUSE, KANDAMTHARA
VENGOLA VILLAGE, PIN - 683556
6 RAIHANATH
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O BASHEER, CHIRAKKAKKUDY HOUSE, KANDAMTHARA,
VENGOLA VILLAGE, PIN - 683556
7 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SRUTHY N BHAT
T.N.ARUNKUMAR (PERUMBAVOOR)(A-663)
V.K.ABDUL JABBAR(K/437/1981)
SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.P .No.283 of 2022
..3..
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging an
interim order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Perumbavoor u/s 23(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act (for short, "DV Act"). The husband is the petitioner.
Respondents 1,2, 3 and 4 are the wife and children of the petitioner.
2. As per the order of the learned Magistrate dated 21 st
August, 2020, the petitioner was directed to give Rs.7,500/- to the 1 st
respondent and Rs.5,000/- each to the respondents 2 to 4 as monthly
maintenance which was confirmed in appeal. The petitioner is
aggrieved by that part of the order granting maintenance to his wife
and children.
3. I have heard both sides.
4. The petitioner is aged 29 years and the 1 st respondent is
aged 27 years. The children of the petitioner and the 1 st respondent
Crl.Rev.P .No.283 of 2022
..4..
are aged 6½ years, 4½ years and 7 months respectively. Admittedly,
the parties are residing separately. It is also submitted that the
petitioner has divorced the 1st respondent by pronouncement of talaq.
There is no case for the petitioner that the 1 st respondent is
employed. There is no satisfactory evidence on the file to show that
she is having sufficient income to support herself and her children.
The petitioner is a businessman. The amount of maintenance
awarded by the court below, according to me, is absolutely
reasonable, if not, inadequate. I see no irregularity or illegality in
the impugned order.
The Crl. Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH,
JUDGE
RMV/06/07/2022
