IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1211 of 2002() ------------------------------ MC.30/1999 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- ABDUL KABEER C.P. S/O. MUHAMOOD, CHATHAPARAMBIL VEEDU, POST NELLIKAPARAMBA VIA., MUKKOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. FATHIMA ROOBI, D/O. ABDUSSALAM, THEVASSERRY HOUSE, OTHAYI, PERAKAMANNA P.O., EDAVANNA 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.A.No.6442/2002 in Crl.R.P.No.1211 of 2002 Dismissed 16-11-2010 Sd/-, P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE /True Copy/ P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1211 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.30/1999 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. First respondent in this revision filed the M.C. before the trial court under Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women ( Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 claiming Rs. 10,33,000/- from the revision petitioner, who is her husband as the value of gold ornaments given by her father which was allegedly misappropriated by her husband and towards expenses during the period of ' iddat ' and for future maintenance. 2. By the impugned order dated July 23, 2002 the learned Magistrate allowed the petition in part directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,08,500/-. The respondent has now come up in revision challenging the said order of the learned Magistrate. When the revision petition came up for hearing today, counsel for the revision petitioner present. It is seen that at the time of staying the operation of the impugned order, this court has directed the revision Crl.R.P..No.1211/2002 2 petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- before the lower court within one month from 10/09/2002. No amount is seen deposited by the revision petitioner before the lower court. Hence revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Send back the records to the lower court forthwith. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P..No.1211/2002 2