Kerala High Court
Majeed Roshan vs Soumya on 2 August, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 3248 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRRP NO.75 OF 2013 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.2 OF 2010 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O), ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER:
MAJEED ROSHAN
AGED 32, S/O. MAJEETH KOYA,VADAKKEYIL, MUTHALAKKODAM
P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL)
SRI.P.N.ANOOP
RESPONDENTS:
1 SOUMYA
AGED 30, D/O. ABDUL JALEEL, APPARTMENT NO. A-5, EAST
AVENUE APARTMENT, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLICPROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.
BY ADVS.
SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN
SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD
SRI.J.RAMKUMAR
SRI.N.SATHEESH KUMARNEMMARA
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.3248 of 2016
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3248 of 2016
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 02nd day of August, 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to
quash the order dated 16.02.2016 in
Crl.R.P.No.75/2013 of the Sessions Court,
Ernakulam which confirmed the order dated
29.06.2013 in M.C.No.2/2010 of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court (EO), Ernakulam.
M.C.No.2/2010 was filed by the 1 st respondent
under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
2. The case of the 1st respondent is that the
petitioner was her husband and they were married
on 13.04.2003. The 1st respondent was a deaf and
dumb person and at the time of marriage she was
an Engineering student. It is submitted that, before
marriage, the petitioner was appointed as Chief
Executive Officer in the business establishment of
the father of the 1st respondent. According to the 1st
respondent, the petitioner was harassing her by
demanding more money and ornaments.
Subsequently, the petitioner divorced the 1 st
respondent on 27.04.2009 and the same has been
communicated to the 1st respondent. The 1st
respondent seeks an amount of Rs.10 lakh as
reasonable and fair provision and maintenance and
also a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month for three
months as maintenance for the Iddah period.
3. To substantiate the case, PW1 was
examined on the side of the 1 st respondent and
Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. Two witnesses were
examined on the side of the petitioner. After going
through the evidences and documents, the learned
Magistrate allowed the petition and directed the
petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- to the
1st respondent as maintenance during the iddah
period and Rs. 4,32,000/- as reasonable and fair
provision. Aggrieved by the order passed by the
trial court, a revision was filed before the Sessions
Court, Ernakulam. The revisional court allowed the
revision in part and the petitioner was directed to
pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- to the 1 st respondent
as maintenance during the iddah period and
Rs.3,24,000/- as fair and reasonable provision.
Aggrieved by the above orders, this Crl.M.C is filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere
with an order passed by the revisional court in a
petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is very
limited. Only if there are illegalities, irregularities
etc., which will go to the root of the case, this Court
can interfere with the orders passed by the trial
court and the revisional court invoking the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court perused the
impugned orders. There is no such illegality or
irregularity in the impugned orders to interfere with
the same invoking the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no merit in this case.
6. The counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that, pursuant to the order in
Crl.R.P.No.75/2013, the petitioner deposited an
amount of Rs.1,01,100/- before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences),
Ernakulam and as per the interim order dated
01.06.2016 in this Crl.M.C., an amount of
Rs.50,000/- is deposited before the trial court. The
counsel submitted that, if this Court is not inclined
to consider the contention raised by the petitioner,
some time may be granted to deposit the amount. I
think some time can be given to the petitioner to
deposit the balance amount.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is
disposed of in the following manner:
1. The order dated 16.02.2016 in Crl.R.P.
No.75/2013 of the Sessions Court,
Ernakulam and the order dated 29.06.2013
in M.C.No.2/2010 of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court (EO), Ernakulam
are confirmed.
2. The petitioner is granted six months time to
deposit the balance amount.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 ORDER IN M.C NO:02/2010 DATED
29/6/2013 OF THE COURT OF
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMIC
OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A2 ORDER IN CRL.RP.NO.75/2013 DATED
16.02.2016 OF DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
