IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1690 of 2009 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/03/2009 IN CRL.M.P 313/2009 IN CRL.A.22/2009 OF SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA. .................... PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/ APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- KHALID, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, VARARAMKANDI HOUSE, KIZHAKKOTH P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.K.RAVEENDRAN MR.M.S. ANIL KUMAR. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAIFUNNIZA, D/O.ABDULLAKUTTY, MANKUZHI HOUSE, MADAKUNNE P.O., KALPETTA, WAYANAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C. NO. 1690/2009: ORDER ON CRL.M.APPL. NO.2787/2009 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1690/2009 DISMISSED 23/05/2009. SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1690 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 23rd day of May,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the husband and first respondent the wife. M.C.133/2008 was filed by the first respondent against the petitioner under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wayanad. As per Annexure A1 order dated 25.11.2008, Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and directed petitioner to pay Rs.1,25,000/-, the amount found to have been received by the petitioner before marriage and belonging to the first respondent, finding that first respondent, is entitled to get that amount as provided under section 19(8) of the Act. In addition petitioner was directed to return 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Crl.M.C.No. 1690/2009 2 Rs.2,70,000/-. Petitioner challenged that order before Sessions Court, Wayanad in Crl.A.22/2009. Crl.M.P.313/2009 was filed for suspending the sentence. As per Annexure A2 order, Annexure A1 was suspended on the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties and also on deposit of Rs.25,000/- which is to be disbursed to the first respondent. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the direction to deposit Rs.25,000/- contending that the learned Sessions Judge is not empowered to direct deposit of the maintenance amount. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality in Annexure A2 order. When Annexure A1 order is sought to be suspended, learned Sessions Judge directed to deposit Rs.25000/- which is part of the amount found due to first respondent from the petitioner, paid for her marriage with the petitioner. It is not a Crl.M.C.No. 1690/2009 3 maintenance as canvassed by the petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge is justified in directing to deposit a portion of the amount which is due to first respondent. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with that order. Crl.M.C is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006