IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3691 of 2005(B) ---------------------------------- CRRP.20/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD MC.96/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER : --------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.V.MOHAMMAD HAJI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.P.V.ABDULKHADER, KALANTHAR HOUSE, ARRANGGADI, P.O.KANHANGAD, HOSDRUG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE : --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.K.HAVVA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.PARAMBATH AHAMMED, RESIDING AT KAITHAKKAD MADRASSA, P.O.KAITHAKKAD, (VIA) CHERUVATHUR, HOSDRUG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SANTHOSHKUMAR - R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE - R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.NO.3691/2005 ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.13315/2005 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3691/2005 DISMISSED 22.08.2008 SD/-, V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3691 OF 2005 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 O R D E R Aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2002 in M.C.No.96/99 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg and the order dated 09.09.2005 in Crl.R.P.No.20/02 of the Sessions Court, Kasargod, the petitioner approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the above orders of the courts below. 2. As per Annexure A1 order, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.6,800/- as value equivalent to two sovereigns of gold ornaments as mahar, Rs.15,000/- as expenses incurred by her to observe the Iddat for a period of 3 months and Rs.75,000/- as reasonable and fair provisions of maintenance. Thus ordered a total sum of Rs.96,800/-. In the revision petition, the revisional court held that the order of the trial court is legal and correct and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. It is the above orders challenged in this proceedings. Crl.M.C.3691 of 2005 2 3. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. 4. M.C.No.96/99 was instituted under Section 3 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 [for short “the Act”]. The first respondent herein, the divorced wife of the petitioner, approached the trial court under Section 3 of the Act stating that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnised on 16.08.1996 as per the customs prevailing in the Muslim Community and in their wedlock two children were born. It is the further case of the wife that the husband pronounced Talaq on 23.04.1998 and hence she is entitled to get all the benefits covered by the provisions of the Act. The wife claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as reasonable and fair provision, Rs.15,000/- as maintenance for the Iddat period of 3 months, Rs.85,000/- as value of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage which is alleged to have misappropriated by the husband, Rs.1,50,000/- as the amount given to the husband by the sister of the claimant after the marriage and Rs.6,800/- as value of the mahar fixed as two Crl.M.C.3691 of 2005 3 sovereigns of gold. Thus, the wife claimed a total sum of Rs.4,51,000/- from the husband, the petitioner herein. 5. Though notice was served on the petitioner/husband for appearance and to file a counter statement, he has not filed any counter statement in time. So he was declared as ex-parte and subsequently the ex-parte order was set aside and he was permitted to file a counter statement. In the counter statement, the petitioner/husband admitted the marriage. But according to him, he divorced the claimant/wife by pronouncing Talaq in the month of April, 1998 due to compelling reasons. It is also the case of the husband that after pronouncing Talaq, he sent Rs.20,000/- in the name of wife towards expenses during the Iddat period of 3 months. It is also contented that he had also sent a sum of Rs.25,000/- as reasonable and fair provisions and maintenance for the claimant. He had denied the allegations that he took 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the claimant and it was misappropriated. It is the version of the husband that the claimant was not having any such quantity of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage and also stated that it is equally false to Crl.M.C.3691 of 2005 4 say that the wife/claimant is a member of a respectable Muslim family. It is also a case of the husband that even at the time of their marriage, the claimant was a widow and she was not having such financial capacity, on the other hand, the husband gave her Rs.10,000/- during the marriage. So he denied the claim for 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or the value equivalent to the gold ornaments. The petitioner has also denied the claim of the wife that the claimant's sister gave Rs.1,50,000/- to the husband. Thus, on the basis of the rival contentions raised by the parties, the matter has been taken for evidence. But the petitioner herein remained absent on several occasions and consequently he was set ex-parte. During the trial, the claimant/wife gave evidence in support of the allegations, averments and claim in the petition. She was examined as PW1. The evidence given by the claimant/wife remained unchallenged. 6. Finally the trial court allowed the claim of the wife against the petitioner. Though the wife had claimed a total sum of Rs.4,51,000/-, the trial court awarded only an amount of Rs.96,800/-. The petitioner herein is directed to pay a sum of Crl.M.C.3691 of 2005 5 Rs.6,800/- as value equivalent to two sovereigns of gold ornaments as mahar, Rs.15,000/- as expenses incurred by her to observe Iddat period and Rs.75,000/- as reasonable and fair provision. Thus, the total amount ordered to be paid by the petitioner was Rs.96,800/-. 7. Though the petitioner herein had preferred a revision as Crl.R.P.No.20/02, the same was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Kasargod by its order dated 09.09.2005. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the petitioner herein did not appear before the court below after he received notice in M.C. proceedings and hence he was set ex-parte. Thereafter the petitioner herein had filed a petition before the trial court to set aside the ex-pate order and it was allowed. Thereafter the husband was allowed to file a counter and he filed a counter and the matter was taken up for evidence. But he was remained absent and hence again he was set ex-parte. Thus, only thereafter the trial court examined PW1. Thus, the revisional court found laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner/husband, and further found there is no meaning in Crl.M.C.3691 of 2005 6 giving him time and his sole idea is to prolong the matter and to deny the payment to his wife. 8. I have carefully considered the materials available on record and also the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Even after the service of notice on the petitioner/husband after filing the claim petition by the wife, he did not choose to appear before the trial court and to resist the claim. Even though he was set ex-parte initially, the same was set aside subsequently and he was given time to substantiate his contentions. But, though a counter statement was filed, he did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his contentions or to disprove the evidences produced by the claimant/wife. The trial court passed the order on 30.04.2002, more than 6 years back. Thereafter the revisional court passed the order during the year 2005. Even according to the petitioner, he had made certain payment under various heads. Going by the counter filed by the petitioner, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent and the divorce. Though the respondent/wife had filed a petition for Crl.M.C.3691 of 2005 7 claiming a total sum of Rs.4,51,000/-, the trial court had awarded only a sum of Rs.96,800/-. By the above order, the court has only directed the petitioner/husband to pay the said amount to his former wife under various heads. This is an order in favour of a destitute wife and two children and that too passed 6 years back. The records show that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner, and in spite of that, due to his sheer negligence and laches he failed to substantiate his defence. Therefore no interference is warranted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with the orders of the court below. I find no reason to interfere with the orders of the courts below and this Crl.M.C. is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pac