IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2665 of 2008() ------------------------- Crl.RP.13/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM MC.8/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- THAJUDEEN KOYA THANGAL, KAIRALY NAGAR, PUNNATHALA CHERI, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JAMEELA BEEVI, JONAKAPURAM, THINGALAZHIAKAM PURAYIDATHIL, BEACH NORTH, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. KERALA STATE REPRESENED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2665 of 2008() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :- ANNEXURE 1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM IN CRIMINAL R.P.13/2007, DATED 11-04-2008. ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE J.F.C.M - II, KOLLAM IN M.C.NO.8/01, DATED 28-02-2007. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURE : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE amk. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2665 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 Order This petition is filed by the former husband challenging the amount awarded under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection and Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The order passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Kollam. As per Annexure-1 order the learned Sessions Judge re-appreciated the entire evidence and after elaborate discussion, dismissed the petition. This Crl.M.C. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. It is only the quantum of amount that is challenged in this petition. 2. Since the evidence adduced by the parties was appreciated by the learned Magistrate and since there was a re- appraisal of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge, the contention that the amount quantified by the court below is exhorbitant cannot be sustained. That apart, the petitioner did not take steps to issue notice on 1st respondent, though this petition was filed in the year 2008. On going through the Crl.M.C.2665/08 2 judgment of the two courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the court below. Hence this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.2665/08 3