IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 CRL.MC.NO. 1215 OF 2011() ---------------------------------------- CRRP.65/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE KATTIKUNNAN ABDU, KUMARAMPUTHUR AMSOM AND DESOM THEKKEKKARA, PALLIKKUNNU,MANNARKKAD TALUK,REP. BY P/A. AGENT PADUVIL MUHAMMADALI, S/O. MUHAMMED @ BAPPU,AGED 39,P.O.ARIYOOR, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. HAFSATH, D/O. KUNJALI, KARIAMBANAKKAL, PALLIKKUNNU DESOM, KUMARAMPUTHUR AMSOM P.O.-678583, MANNARKKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAIBY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1215 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 O R D E R Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on the petition to condone the delay in filing revision no notice was issued to the first respondent. Hence notice to the first respondent is dispensed with. 2. Petitioner has suffered an order under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce) Act, 1986 in M.C. No.60 of 2004 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarcaud for payment of `94,500/- to the first respondent. That order was challenged before learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl. R.P. No.65 of 2010 with a petition to condone the delay of 3436 days. The nephew of petitioner filed an affidavit (since petitioner was allegedly abroad) stating reasons for the delay. Learned Sessions Judge directed petitioner to file a proper affidavit and posted the revision petition on 17.01.2011. On that day, counsel for petitioner remained absent and there was no representation. Hence C.M.P. No.4183 of 2010 (to condone the delay) was dismissed and consequently the revision petition was also dismissed by Annexures-A3, and A4, orders respectively dated 17.01.2011. Those orders are under challenge. Learned counsel CRL.M.C. No.1215 of 2011 -: 2 :- submitted that petitioner has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Muhammadali who has been authorised to swear an affidavit stating reasons for the delay. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. The Power of Attorney produced in this Court is seen executed before the Attache, Embassy of India, Riyadh. In view of the Power of Attorney (allegedly) executed in favour of the said Muhammadali who is representing petitioner I am inclined to give petitioner an opportunity to file proper affidavit. But I am not entering into the question whether affidavit of the Power of Attorney Holder is sufficient to condone the delay since that is a matter which the learned Sessions Judge has to decide after giving notice to the first respondent. In the circumstances this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. C.M.P. No.4183 and Crl. R.P. No.65 of 2011 are remitted to the learned Sessions Judge for fresh decision after giving petitioner opportunity to file a proper affidavit explaining the delay. Petitioner shall appear in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad on 23.05.2011. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv