IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2219 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRRP.14/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY MC.152/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- M.C.NAZIR, S/O. MOHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 39 YEARS, FATHIMA MANZIL, PUNCHAKKAD P.O., PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- C.H.RAHIYANATH, D/O. MUSTHAFA, AGED 26 YEARS, NEAR KANNANGAT TEMPLE, RAMANTHALI, P.O.VADAKKUMPAD, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 2219 OF 2007 =========================== Dated this the 30th day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery in Crl.R.P.14/2002 directing him to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance for the Iddat period and Rs.3 lakhs towards fair and reasonable provision to respondent, the petitioner in M.C.152/1997 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur, his divorced wife. Learned Magistrate rejected the claim raised by the respondent on the ground that a fair and reasonable provision has already been granted at the time of talaq. Respondent filed Crl.R.P.14/2002 before Sessions Court, Thalassery challenging that order. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence found that revision CRRP 2219/2007 2 petitioner pronounced talaq on 2.2.1997 and there is no evidence to prove that either the maintenance for the Iddat period or fair and reasonable provision was paid and set aside the finding of the Magistrate and directed payment of maintenance for the Iddat period and fair and reasonable provision. The order is challenged in this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel in the light of the evidence on record fairly submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the findings of the learned Sessions Judge the liability of revision petitioner except on the failure to grant adjustment of of the payment made evidenced under Ext.R1 receipt. Learned counsel submitted that as per Ext.R1 receipt issued by the father of first respondent, Rs.12,500/- received by the father of first respondent from Khathib of CRRP 2219/2007 3 Ramanathali, which was entrusted to him by the the father of revision petitioner was acknowledged and this amount should have been adjusted towards the liability. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that payment evidenced by Ext.R1 was towards the earlier maintenance and it was received by the father and not by the first respondent and so it cannot be adjusted. On going through the evidence, I find no justification for not granting adjustment of Rs.12,500/- evidenced by Ext.R1, which was received by the father of respondent as there was no case that any amount was due to the father of respondent from either revision petitioner or his father. In such circumstance, revision is disposed modifying the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Thalassery in CrlR.P.14/2002 to the limited extent by directing revision petitioner to pay the maintenance for Iddat period and fair and reasonable provision as found by the Sessions Judge less Rs.12,500/- CRRP 2219/2007 4 covered by Ext.R1. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006