IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3886 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.63/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- K. SAMEER, S/O. ALI, MARWA, MANJAKKAL, MAHE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. K.C. SAREENA, W/O. SAMEER, THAYIF, P.O. ALIYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3886 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner in this Crl.MC challenges the direction issued to him under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act to pay an amount of Rs.96,000/- to the respondent/claimant/his divorced wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. That the claimant wife had obtained an ex-parte decree for divorce which has now become final is conceded. It is also conceded that the divorce has been effected and has now become final. Thus the liability for payment of amounts under Section 3 is not disputed. There were disputes raised about the quantum of payments due under Section 3. Though fabulous amounts were claimed before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate on the materials available before him came to the conclusion that a total amount of Rs.96,000/- alone is payable as per the details shown below: Maintenance during the period of Idda at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for three months : Rs. 6,000/- Reasonable provision for the divorced wife for The future(Rs.1,500 X 5yrs X 12 months) : Rs.90,000/- ---------------------- Total :Rs.96,000/- ============= Crl.M.C. No. 3886 OF 2008 -:2:- 3. The first court fixed the amount and the court of revision upheld the same. A second revision is not maintainable in the light of the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C and the petitioner has hence labelled this petition as one under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Bar against a second revision may not by itself operate as a fetter on the exercise of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But, definitely while considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to warrant invocation of such extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction, the second challenge having been proscribed under 397 (3) Cr.P.C. 4. I have looked at the question from the point of view of justice. The petitioner is employed abroad. There are disputes about the income which he earns from such employment abroad. The claimant asserted that it was Rs.20,000/- per mensem. No better materials were placed before Court though CPW1 made contra assertions. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem during the period of Crl.M.C. No. 3886 OF 2008 -:3:- Idda, during which period the woman is subjected to debility and an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensem thereafter for a period of 5 years would be absolutely fair and reasonable. 5. Accepting any standards, I am unable to agree that the quantum fixed is so grossly erroneous or the discretion exercised by court below suffers from such vice as to justify invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. This Crl.MC in these circumstances deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3886 OF 2008 -:4:- Crl.M.C. No. 3886 OF 2008 -:5:-