Kerala High Court
Shihab Ali vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2024:KER:77793
CRL.MC NO. 6855 OF 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6855 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2018 IN CRRP NO.12 OF 2015 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI / II A
THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2014 IN MC NO.39/2013 OF CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANJERI
PETITIONER/REVISION PETITION/RESPONDENT:
SHIHAB ALI
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O VALIYAPEEDIYEKKEL MUHAMMED,
C/O MOOLAMKUZHIYIL RUKIYA, MULLAPPALLI,
KOOTILANGADI(P.O), MALAPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. C.A.NAVAS
SRI.P.A.SHAJI SAMAD
SMT.E.G.AMBILY
SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR
SRI.C.J.SOLOMAN
SMT.PRAISHEEL PRAKASAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 ROSNI
D/O.CHALIL KOYALI, KARASSERY, MUKKAM,
NOW RESIDING AT C/O.ANWAR, PUTHUHODIKKA HOUSE,
CHERUMANNU, EDAVANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2024:KER:77793
CRL.MC NO. 6855 OF 2018
2
BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:77793
CRL.MC NO. 6855 OF 2018
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.6855 of 2018
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024
ORDER
This criminal miscellaneous case is filed challenging
Annexures A2 and A3 orders. The 2 nd respondent filed
M.C.No.39/2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Manjeri under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Woman (Protection of
Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, Act 1986), claiming
different amount under different heads. The learned
Magistrate, after considering the evidence and documents
produced by both sides, directed the petitioner to pay
Rs.15,000/- as maintenance for iddat period and Rs.6,00,000/-
as reasonable and fair provision under Section 3 of the Act 1986
and in default of payment of the amount, the 2 nd respondent is
allowed to release the said amount with interest at the rate of
6% from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the above order, the
petitioner filed Crl.R.P. No.12/2015 before the Sessions Court,
2024:KER:77793
CRL.MC NO. 6855 OF 2018
Manjeri. The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Manjeri considered
the revision in detail and dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by
the same, this criminal miscellaneous case is filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
2. It is a settled position that the jurisdiction of this
Court to interfere with an order passed by the revisional court
by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited. This petition is filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because there is no second revision
against Annexure-A3 order. Unless there is serious illegality or
jurisdictional error which will go to the root of the case, this
Court cannot invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
against the order passed by the revisional court. Keeping in
mind the above principle, this Court perused the impugned
orders.
3. Considering the status of the petitioner including his
job and considering the standard of life of the 2 nd respondent in
the society, the learned Magistrate found that she is entitled to
get maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month.
Accordingly an amount of Rs.15,000/- was ordered by the
learned Magistrate towards iddat period (for three months).
2024:KER:77793
CRL.MC NO. 6855 OF 2018
This was confirmed by the revisional court. I see no reason to
interfere with the same because the amount fixed by the learned
Magistrate which is confirmed by the revisional court is a
reasonable amount.
4. The learned Magistrate found that the 2 nd respondent
is entitled an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as reasonable and fair
provision taking Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance for a period
of ten years (5,000 x 10 x 12). The learned Magistrate relied on
the judgment of this Court in Kunhimuhammed v. Sajitha
[2014 (1) KLT 43] while fixing the multiplier. This was
confirmed by the revisional court also. I see no reason to
interfere with the above finding of fact by the trial court and the
revisional court. Accordingly there is no merit in this criminal
miscellaneous case.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the petitioner can be given four months' time to pay the amount
due to the 2nd respondent. The amount, if any, deposited/paid
based on the orders of the revisional court or this Court shall be
adjusted and only the balance amount need to be paid by the
petitioner.
2024:KER:77793
CRL.MC NO. 6855 OF 2018
With the above observation, this criminal miscellaneous
case is disposed of.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
2024:KER:77793
CRL.MC NO. 6855 OF 2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
04/11/2013.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/02/2014
IN MC NO.39/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, MANJERI.
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14/03/2018 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO.12/2015 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
MANJERI.
