IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 836 of 2008() ------------------------ CRRP.13/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- P.C.NAZEERA, D/O.ABDUL SALAM, CHATHODY HOUSE, TOWN HALL ROAD, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENTS: FORMAL PARTY/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.UMMER, S/O.ABBAS, U.D.CLERK, GOVERNMENT TRAINING COLLEGE, THALASSERY, RESIDING AT JASMINA MAHAL, KUNDURTHODU, P.O.SIVAPURAM, NOW EMPLOYED AS U.D.CLERK, GOVERNMENT BRENNEN COLLEGE, P.O.DHARMADAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.836 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 ORDER The application of the petitioner under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 was concurrently dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation. It is the said orders passed by the courts below which are assailed in this Crl.M.C. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent took place on 28.09.86. Their post marital co- habitation lasted only for three months. In December 1986, V.Ummer pronounced triple talaq on her. She demanded maintenance from her husband in the year 1987 and her demand was turned down in the year 1988. Thereafter, the present application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 was filed on 20.5.03. Even if the liberal construction given to the applicability of the Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 in Hassainar v. Raziya (1993(2) KLT 805) were to be accepted by holding that the period of three years prescribed under the Limitation Act begins only from the Crl.M.C.No.836 of 2008 2 date of refusal to the demand for maintenance, the refusal in this case took place long back in the year 1998. Within three years thereof she ought to have filed the application for maintenance. Hence the court below is fully justified in dismissing the petition as barred by limitation. I cannot accept the interpretation given by a learned Judge of the Patna High Court in Shahnaz Bano alias Shahnaz Khan v. Pervers Ahmad Khan and others (AIR 2000 Patna 326) taking the extreme view that there is no limitation for an application under Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj