IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3876 of 2009() ----------------------------------- MC.231/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMANGALAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- M.K. MOHAMMED ASHRAF MOULAVI, S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY, AGED 38 YEARS, ASARUKANDY HOUSE, PAZHOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.M. RAMLA, D/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, PUTHIYAMADATHIL HOUSE, ANAKUZHIKAVU, KUTTIKATOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.3876 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 1st December 2009 ORDER Petitioner is the respondent in M.C.231/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam. First respondent filed a petition under Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act seeking fair and reasonable provision contending that at the time of dissolution of the marriage, petitioner did not make any fair and reasonable provision. Petitioner filed C.M.P.4002/2009 to stay the proceedings till the disposal of O.P.3/2009 pending before Sub court, Manjeri contending that out come of the said suit has a direct bearing on the quantum of fair and reasonable provision to be fixed in the case and therefore the proceedings is to be stayed. By Annexure-A3 order learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A3 order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. Crmc 3876/09 2 4. Learned counsel relying on the decision of this court in Laya v. Sumesh (2006 (4) KLT 517) argued that in appropriate cases Magistrate is empowered to stay the proceedings till the disposal of the civil suit by invoking powers under Section 309(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, learned Magistrate should have stayed the case. Affidavit filed along with C.M.P.4002/2009 shows that said O.P was filed by the wife claiming right over five acres of land. Argument of the learned counsel is that if that O.P is to be allowed in favour of first respondent, she would have right over five acres of the property and therefore learned Magistrate should have stayed the matter. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find that the said aspect is that much relevant to fix the quantum of fair and reasonable provision in M.C.231/2008, In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-Ae order. Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order, if so advised along with the final order. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.