IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3546 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.18/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.H.YOUSUF, S/O.HAMEED RAOTAR, 48 YEARS, ELAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE KALIOKAVU AMSOM, PULLANKODE DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SRI.M.V.ANANDAN SMT.DAISY IRENE DANIEL SRI.C.J.SOLOMAN RESPONDENTS(S): ---------------- 1. T.T.NASEEMA, D/O.MUHAMMED, 42 YEARS THONNAMTHOODI HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, PERINTHALMANNA AMSOM, DESOM, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3546 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has come to this court with this Crl.M.C to assail the concurrent direction issued to him under Section 3 of the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act to pay a total amount of Rs.2,96,000/- to the claimant, his wife. Before me, marriage and divorce are admitted. The liability to pay amounts under Section 3 of the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act is not disputed. The court below directed payment of the following amounts: i) Maintenance during the period of iddah Rs.2,000/- x 3 = Rs.6,000/- ii) Fair and reasonable provision for the future. That is 10 years x Rs.2,000/- x 12 months = Rs.2,40,000/- iii) Amounts received by the petitioner from the relatives of the claimant - Rs.50,000/-. Total - Rs.2,96,000/- 2. Though various contentions are seen raised earlier, before me the short contention raised by the learned counsel for Crl.M.C.No.3546/08 2 the petitioner is that the amount of Rs.2,000/- reckoned as the multiplicand and ten years taken as the multiplier is wrong. The same warrants interference. The multiplier and the multiplicand may suitably be reduced, it is contended. I am at the third tier of this criminal litigation. A second revision by the petitioner is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C and that explains why this petition has got into this court with a label of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C affixed with. It is trite that what is specifically prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C cannot ordinarily be sought to be achieved by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Of course, it is equally well settled that if the interests of justice so demand, the sweep of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not fettered by such provisions also. 3. Be that as it may, the short question that I have to consider in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is whether the adoption of the multiplier and the multiplicand as ten years and Rs.2,000/- by the courts below is so grossly erroneous and perverse and does in turn result in failure/miscarriage of justice as to persuade me to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Crl.M.C.No.3546/08 3 Cr.P.C. The spouses have remained in matrimony for quite a long period of time, that is more than a decade and a half. The claimant/wife was aged 42 years and with two children, the prospects of a re-marriage can certainly be said to be bleak. It is also of relevance to note that the petitioner who had lived in matrimony with the woman had divorced her alleging that she is mentally not normal. The possibility of re-marriage recedes further in the light of this contention raised. 4. We have satisfactory evidence about the degree of affluence enjoyed by the parties at the time of divorce. The petitioner was a business man in textiles. He has re-married also at this age giving some indication of the degree of financial affluence that he enjoys. It is in these circumstances that the courts below accepted Rs.2,000/- as the multiplicand and ten years as the multiplier. Divorce took place in the year 1996 and there is no contention before me that the claimant/wife has got re-married even after an elapse of a period of about 12 years. In any view of the matter, therefore, I am not persuaded to agree that the multiplicand and the multiplier fixed by the court below do not suffer from any such vice which would justify or warrant Crl.M.C.No.3546/08 4 invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As regards the amount of Rs.50,000/- directed to be paid, there is a candid admission that the payment has been received. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the petitioner has suffered an accident. It was also given in evidence that he has claimed compensation and an amount has been awarded by the Tribunal to compensate him. At any rate, that circumstance does not also persuade me to reckon the same as a relevant input to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. I do not in these circumstances find any reason to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.3546/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.3546/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008