IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3288 of 2008() ------------------------------------------- MC.14/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKKANCHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------------- RAMLA, D/O.MOIDUNNI THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, KADANGOD.PO., THALAPPILLLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. BASHEER, S/O.LATE HAMSA, CHEMBRAYOOR HOUSE, VELLARAKKAD PO., THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3288 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the divorced wife of first respondent. M.C.14 of 2007 was filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkachcherry under Section 3 of Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, claiming maintenance for the Iddath period as well as reasonable and fair provision. The case was dismissed on 24.6.2008, as petitioner was absent and there was no representation on her behalf. Case of the petitioner is that the case stood posted to 17.4.2008 and though the case was adjourned to 24.6.2008, clerk of his counsel noted the posting date wrongly as 25.6.2008 and therefore petitioner and the counsel were not present in court on 24.6.2008 and learned Magistrate dismissed the case and absence of petitioner was not wilful or due to negligence or laches and therefore the dismissal was not justified. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that notice to first respondent was issued on 5.5.2007 and he had appeared on 4.8.2007 and it was posted to 2.11.2007 and thereafter adjourned to 22.3.2008 and then to 17.4.2008. First CRRP 3228/2008 2 respondent was also absent on 24.6.2008. Petitioner was present on all other occasions and his absence was due to the mistake committed by the clerk of his counsel in noting the posting date incorrectly and was not wilful and therefore an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner. 3. In view of the fact that petitioner is claiming maintenance for the Iddath period and reasonable and fair provision after the dissolution of marriage under Section 3 of Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, and the petition happened to be dismissed for non representation and also failure of the petitioner to appear, in the interest of justice, an opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner to have a decision on merits. In such circumstances, the order dismissing the complaint, dated 24.6.2008, is set aside and M.C.14 of 2007 is restored to the file. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkachcherry is directed to dispose the case in accordance with law after serving notice on the respondent. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-