IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 419 of 2011() ------------------------ CRRP.3/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC I),MANJERI MC.29/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HYRUNNEESA, D/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, DEVASWAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARAKKALAMKUNNU, WANDOOR AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.MOHAMMEDALI, S/O.KHADIRSHA, THEKKARATHODIKA HOUSE, CHANDAKUNNU PO, NILAMBUR DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 324. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.419 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioner, not satisfied with the amount awarded by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna as enhanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manjeri under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (for short, “the Act”) has come to this Court to try her luck under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). She filed M.C.No.29 of 2007 before the learned Magistrate making various claims including expenses during the period of iddat, reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance and certain other claims regarding value of ornaments and money allegedly entrusted to respondent No.1. Petitioner gave evidence as PW1 and her brother was examined as PW2. No documentary evidence was produced. Since respondent No.1 was abroad during the relevant time his power of attorney holder and mother gave evidence as CPW1. Learned Magistrate considered the oral evidence, on record, found that the case of respondent No.1 that he had gone abroad on a visiting visa cannot be accepted and accepted case of petitioner that he is working there. Considering the evidence regarding financial situation of the parties concerned learned Magistrate directed the respondent to pay maintenance during the period of iddat to the petitioner at the rate of `.2,000/- per month and a sum of `.1,20,000/- was awarded in lump as reasonable and fair provision for future Crl.MC No.419/2011 2 maintenance. In the light of contradictory evidence regarding other claims learned Magistrate was not inclined to allow those claims. Petitioner, unsatisfied with the order of learned Magistrate challenged that order in Crl.R.P.No.3 of 2009. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) I, Manjeri while exercising power of revision found that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of learned Magistrate as to the claims in respect of ornaments and cash as there was no acceptable evidence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not find it necessary to enhance maintenance awarded for the period of iddat. But, in paragraph 19 of the order learned Additional Sessions Judge observed the (pitiable) condition in which petitioner aged about 28 years is placed having bore two children for respondent No.1 in the wedlock. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also referred to the bleak possibility of petitioner having a second marriage at this age and thought that there must be enhancement of reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. Accordingly amount payable on that count was enhanced from `.1,20,000/- to `.1,50,000/-. Petitioner is aggrieved. Learned counsel submitted that learned Sessions Judge having found the pitiable condition in which petitioner is placed should have been more sympathetic towards her in awarding maintenance during the period of iddat and reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that learned Additional Sessions Judge was not inclined to accept the evidence of CPW1. Crl.MC No.419/2011 3 2. I must bear in mind that this Court is now requested to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code, inherent power of this Court to interfere in the interest of justice and to prevent an abuse of process of law. Even so far as revisional court is concerned, I must bear in mind that it is not a case of re- appreciation of evidence but, the revisional court was concerned only with the question regarding legality, regularity and propriety of the order or proceedings of the trial court. Only in case of grave injustice revisional court was required to interfere. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was inclined to think that the amount awarded for reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance is low and accordingly, has enhanced the amount to `.1,50,000/-. 3. So far as the claims based on value of ornaments and cash allegedly entrusted with the respondent No.1 is concerned, as pointed out by the courts below available evidence is that of the petitioner and her brother as PWs 1 and 2. No independent witness was examined. In such a situation I am not inclined to think that this Court is required to interfere under Section 482 of the Code so far as rejection of those claims are concerned. 4. What remained is only whether intervention of this Court under Section 482 of the Code with respect to maintenance awarded for during the period of iddat and reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance is required. The decisions on the point say that in deciding that, the courts are to bear in mind the socio-economic condition of the parties. No doubt, evidence Crl.MC No.419/2011 4 shows that respondent No.1 is working abroad. But there is no acceptable evidence regarding the nature of employment or the income he is getting. What is available is only the interested version of PWs 1 and 2. It is also not shown that petitioner is placed in such a high financially sound situation that normally the same status could be expected for respondent No.1 also. Having regard to these aspects of the matter, I am not inclined to think that the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code is required to be exercised in the matter, at the instance of petitioner. Petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks