IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2820 of 2008() ------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.27/07 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI IN MC.23/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------ HASEENA BEGUM, D/O.HASSINAR MALAPPURAVAN HOUSE PADIKUNNU PO., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/STATE & RESPONDENT ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2. MUHAMMEDALI, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM VADAKKAN HOUSE, THIRUMUNDI, VALLIKUNNU KOTTAMBARA PO., AMARAMBALAM POOKOTTUMPADAM NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.2820 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner had approached the learned Magistrate with a claim for amounts payable under Section 3 of the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. The learned Magistrate allowed the claim and directed payment of an amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.2,000 X 3) towards maintenance for the period of Iddat and an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.1,500/- X 10 X 12) as reasonable provision for the divorced wife. Thus in all she was held entitled to an amount of Rs.1,86,000/-. 2. The respondent/husband approached the learned Sessions Judge claiming to be aggrieved by that order. The learned Sessions Judge in revision upheld the direction for payment of maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per mensem for a period of 3 months - the period of Iddat. The learned Sessions Judge however reduced the multiplier from 10 to 7, but enhanced the multiplicand from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- while computing the reasonable and fair provision. Thus the petitioner who was earlier entitled for an amount of Rs.1.86 lakhs became entitled to an amount of Rs.1,74,000/-. The petitioner claims to be Crl.M.C No.2820 of 2008 2 aggrieved by that order. The total amount has got reduced by Rs.12,000/- and this is not justified, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The respondent/husband has not preferred any challenge against the impugned order, it is submitted. 4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. To me, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge was eminently justified in issuing a revised direction to pay an amount of Rs.1.74 lakhs as fair and reasonable provision and maintenance on divorce. The enhancement of the multiplicand and the reduction of the multiplier do in the circumstances of the case appear to be absolutely reasonable and justified. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can, need or deserves to be invoked to interfere with the impugned order. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. It is submitted and the Registry confirms that no challenge against the impugned order by the respondent is pending. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C No.2820 of 2008 3