IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1261 of 2005() ------------------------- CRRP.123/2003 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD MC.63/1968 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAIDALIKUTTY, S/O.CHITTAPPURATH POCKER, ATHAVANAD AMSOM & DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KHADEEJA, D/O.MURAKKASSERRY POCKER, NADUVATTOM AMSOM & DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1261 of 2005 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed against an order passed against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Muslim Women Protection and Right of Divorce Act, 1986 (the Act for short), directing petitioner to pay certain amounts towards maintenance during the Iddath period, towards reasonable and fair provision and future maintenance etc. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner was contesting the matter before trial court but it so happened petitioner was hospitalised and hence he could not appear before the trial court on the date on which case was posted for evidence and he was set ex-parte, since the counsel reported no instruction. The first respondent did not enter appearance in this petition though notice was served. But on going through the order under challenge, it can be seen that petitioner had obtained stay from the Chief Judicial Magistrate's court in a petition filed by him to transfer the case to some other court. 3. It is seen from the impugned order that the main Crl.M.C.No.1261 of 2005 2 petition was filed by first respondent as early as on 1998. The transfer petition was reportedly dismissed on 21.5.2001 and certified copy of the proceedings paper was produced only on 16.11.2002 before the trial court. Then only the matter was proceeded with. But on 19.4.2003 when the matter was taken up, counsel for petitioner reported no instructions and petitioner was set ex-parte and first respondent was examined as PW1 and the case was disposed of. 4. Though petitioner would contend that he was laid up etc. there is absolutely nothing on record to probabalise the same. Besides the relevant dates will indicate that the petitioner was guilty of laches in not contesting the matter and it may even appear that he was dragging on the proceedings. Still I think that an opportunity can be given to him to contest the matter, since it is submitted that an amount of Rs.25,000/- is already deposited in court at the time of admission of this case and an order was also made to release the said amount to first respondent. However, it may not be just and proper to allow the petition, without any order as to costs. 5. In the result, the order under challenge is set aside on condition that petitioner deposits Rs.10,000/- as costs before the Crl.M.C.No.1261 of 2005 3 trial court within a period of 30 days from today. If the amount is not deposited within such time, this petition shall stand dismissed. Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.Hema, Judge cms