IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1340 of 2001() ------------------------------ MC.7/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN M.C: ---------------------------------------------- HASSAINAR, S/O. LATE T.H.BAVA, AGED 30, THENATTU HOUSE, CHURCH ROAD, NORTH KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO RESPONDENT: --------------- HANNA @ BINUSREE, D/O.DIVAKARAN PILLAI, R.D.BHAVAN, PALLATHUKADAVU ROAD, NORTH KALAMASSERY. ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1340 of 2001 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.6359/2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.1340/2001 DISMISSED. 13.10.2008 SD/-THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================== Crl.R.P. No.1340 of 2001 =============================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008. O R D E R Revision petitioner, respondent and their counsel remained absent. There is no representation. 2. Order dated 9.2.2001 passed by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva, under Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), is under challenge at the instance of revision petitioner, former husband. Respondent claimed that revision petitioner married her on 12.12.94 as per Muslim religious rights and ceremonies and a child was born in the wedlock on 19.12.1996. Unable to bear the ill treatment of revision petitioner, she filed O.P.No.410/1999 in the Family Court, Ernakulam, for dissolution of marriage. She got a decree in her favour on 31.7.1999. She claimed value of mehar, Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance for the period of iddat and Rs.10,00,000/- for future maintenance of herself and son who, at the relevant time was studying in a convent school at Kalamassery. She claimed that revision Crl.R.P. No.1340 of 2001 2 petitioner is earning anything not less than Rs.15,000/- per month. She gave evidence as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 and P2. Revision petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence and instead, proved Ext.D1. Learned magistrate allowed Rs.8,000/- being the value of mehar, Rs.4,500/- towards expenses during the period of iddat and Rs.1,44,000/- as reasonable and fare provision for future maintenance for respondent and son. That order is under challenge. 3. It is contended in the revision petition that the order under challenge is illegal. It is also contended that respondent was not a Muslim at the time of marriage. 4. Ex t.P2 which is the copy of order dated 31.7.1999 of Family Court, Ernakulam shows that though ex-parte, that court allowed the prayer of respondent for dissolution of marriage. Respondent gave evidence as PW1 and stated that though she was a Hindu, she fell in love with revision petitioner, embraced Islam and thereafter revision petitioner married her. No contra evidence was adduced by revision petitioner in the court below and the Family court also entertained the application filed by Crl.R.P. No.1340 of 2001 3 revision petitioner for dissolution of marriage. There is nothing illegal or irregular in the court below accepting the version of respondent that there was a valid marriage. 5. So far as value of mehar is concerned, learned magistrate accepted the evidence of respondent as PW1. Evidence revealed that parties are placed in reasonably good financial condition. Revision petitioner is running a Gas Agency at Palarivattom. According to the respondent, revision petitioner is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. No contra evidence is adduced by the revision petitioner. In these circumstances, I do not find anything illegal or irregular the court below in accepting the evidence of respondent regarding mehar and its value. Rs.4,500/- was awarded as maintenance during the period of iddat, which is only at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month, which in the given facts of the case, cannot be said to be excessive. Court below observed that Rs.1,200/- per month will be sufficient for future maintenance and taking 10 as multiplier, since respondent was aged 28 years at the relevant time, awarded Rs.1,44,000/- towards reasonable and fare provision for future maintenance. Crl.R.P. No.1340 of 2001 4 It is taking into account the financial position of the parties and capacity of revision petitioner that the order is passed. No interference is called for on any ground. Revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. bkn/-