IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1194 of 2011() --------------------------------- CRRP.52/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR MC.42/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SHAMEER, AGED 25, S/O.HASSANKUTTY, AMBALATH HOUSE, ARIYANNUR DESOM, KANDANASSERY VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER&STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 688 531. 2. RAHILA, AGED 40, W/O.BUSHAR, THERIYATH HOUSE, NEAR MASJID, PUDUSSERI, P.O. CHEMMANTHITTA, KUNNAMKULAM, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR.685 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss CRMC. NO.1194/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC.42/2005 DTD. 6.3.2010 ON THE FILES OF JFCM, KUNNAMKULAM. A2:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.RP. 52/2010 DTD. 12.11.2010 ON THE FILES OF SESSINS JUDGE, THRISSUR. A3:- COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MADYAMAM DAILY DTD. 21.3.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 1194 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State as well as the de facto complainant. 2. The petitioner who is the respondent in M.C No. 42 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam registered for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, has challenged the impugned order dated 12.11.2010 in Crl.R.P. No. 52 of 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur and the order dated 06.03.2010 in M.C. No. 42 of 2005 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam. Initially I suggest the parties as to whether the petitioner is willing to pay the amount in instalments. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, states that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the amount as directed by the courts below. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the case. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. rv