IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2008 / 2ND POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 5020 of 2008() --------------------------------- CRL. M.P. 3715 OF 2008 IN CRRP.28/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY MC.3/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- C.K.BEERANKUTTY S/O. KUNHAYAN, CHEERANKULANGARA HOUSE VALLITHODE, KILIYANTHRA PO, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.SEENATH, D/O. PAKKER, KANIYARAKKAL HOUSE, PAYANCHERRY, THALASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------- CRL.M.C. 5020 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2008 O R D E R Notice to the first respondent is dispensed with since the order under challenge is an exparte order imposing condition for stay requested by the petitioner. 2. Heard the counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Petitioner has suffered an order for payment of Rs. 2,56,500/- to the first respondent as per order dated 30.8.2008 in M.C. 3/2005 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. Petitioner challenged that order in revision before the Sessions Court, Thalassery and requested for stay of execution of the impugned order. Learned Sessions Judge as per order dated 3.10.2008, suspended the order on condition that petitioner deposits Rs. 1,00,000/- in the trial court on or before 20.12.2008. Petitioner is aggrieved by that condition and hence this petition. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the trial court having found that petitioner is a coolie, court below should have found that he has no sufficient means to pay the sum of Rs. 2,56,500/- and at any rate, learned Sessions Judge was not Crl.M.C.No. 5020/2008 -2- justified in directing deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and that too, within a short time, on or before 20.12.2008. 3. I have gone through the orders under challenge and, it is not appropriate for me to make any observation regarding the merit of the contention since that a matter to be decided by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion to grant stay of operation of the order, subject to condition which, I am unable to think, was without jurisdiction, illegal or irregular. Hence, I am not inclined to think that interference with that direction is required. However, considering the difficulty stated by the petitioner to raise the said amount and deposit it in lump on or before 20.12.2008, I am inclined to grant the petitioner facility to deposit the said amount in two instalments and grant further time to do so. Resultantly, this Crl.M.C is disposed of permitting the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, in two instalments before 31.01.2009. The order under challenge is modified accordingly. Crl. M.C. is disposed of accordingly. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vkm