IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 206 of 2009 ---------------------------------- (MC.28/2006 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- RASNI, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL KARIM, MUKALEL HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM, POTHANIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER-STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUBAIR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ABDULRAHIMAN, EKKARAKUDI HOUSE, ADIMALI P.O., MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN BY ADV. SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR) FOR R1 SRI.P.V.PAULSON FOR R1 SRI.MUHAMMED SUHAILKHAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 206 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This Crl.Revision Petition is filed against the order in M.C.No.28 of 2006, which is a claim petition under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), with a prayer to enhance the maintenance ordered by the trial court. 2. By the impugned order, the trial court found that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.4500/- by way of reasonable and fair provision of maintenance during the period of iddat and also held that the petitioner is entitled to get lump sum of Rs.90,000/- towards the reasonable and fair provision and maintenance after iddat period. It is also held that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.13,000/- towards the maintenance of her child. Thus, the total amount will come to the tune of Rs.1,07,500/-. Crl.R.PNO.206 of 2009 :-2-: 3. According to the revision petitioner, the amount awarded by the court below is not sufficient. During the pendency of this revision petition and upon receiving the notice in this revision petition, the first respondent in the proceedings before the trial court appeared before this Court and filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') with a prayer to pass appropriate orders for expeditious disposal of Crl.R.P.No.104 of 2008 pending before the Ist Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam which was filed by him against the very same order of the court below. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. In view of the direction which I propose to issue in this case, I am not entering into the merits of the case of the petitioner and the respondents. 6. Admittedly, the revision petitioner herein moved the trial court claiming maintenance for herself and her Crl.R.PNO.206 of 2009 :-3-: child under Section 3(2) of the Act which was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the above order, the sole respondent in the court below, who is the first respondent herein, approached the Sessions Court, Ernakulam by filing Crl.R.P.No.104 of 2008 and the same was pending for consideration in the same court. It is also beyond dispute that when the above revision petition was considered by the Sessions Court on 24.11.2008, the Sessions Court ordered stay of operation of the order of the learned Magistrate on condition that the counter petitioner/husband deposits a sum of Rs.35,000/- within one month from the date of the order and the claimant was allowed to withdraw such amount. The first respondent herein submitted that the said order was complied with. 7. Challenging the sufficiency of the amount ordered by the trial court, the claimant has approached this Court by filing the present revision petition. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is revisable and the Sessions Court as Crl.R.PNO.206 of 2009 :-4-: well as this Court have got concurrent jurisdiction. If that be so, when the revision petition filed by the counter petitioner/husband, which is pending before the Sessions Court, is called for to this Court and disposed of together, the aggrieved parties will lost one forum for the redressal of their further grievance, if any. On the other hand, if both the matters are heard together by the Sessions Court, the aggrieved parties can approach this Court by initiating appropriate proceedings. If that be so, for the ends of justice, I am of the view that the revision petitioner can approach the Sessions Court for agitating her cause which is the subject matter of this Crl.R.P. It is also relevant to note that as per the order of the Sessions Court, the counter petitioner/husband has already deposited a sum of Rs.35,000/- and the same was allowed to be withdrawn by the claimant. It is submitted that the revision petitioner, who is the respondent in the revision petition filed by the husband, has not appeared so far in the Sessions Court. Crl.R.PNO.206 of 2009 :-5-: In the result, this revision petition is disposed of directing the revision petitioner to approach the Sessions Court by filing a revision petition within 45 days from today and if such a revision petition is filed, the same shall be received on file and shall be entertained if the same is otherwise in order. On such filing of revision petition, the Sessions Court is directed to consider both the revision petitions together and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of filing of the revision petition at the instance of the petitioner herein as ordered by this Court. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. sd/- V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ -true copy- P.A.TO JUDGE. Crl.R.PNO.206 of 2009 :-6-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ -------- Crl.R.PNO.206 of 2009 :-7-: O R D E R DATED: -10-2009 Crl.R.PNO.206 of 2009 :-8-: