IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3022 of 2005() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2005 IN MP 824/04 IN MC.13/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- KOYA, MANNARKKATTIL HOUSE, KUNJINIKKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------- 1. RAMLA, D/O. SAIDALI, PANDALAKKODATH HOUSE, EDATHALA, ALUVA. 2. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.11401/05 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3022/05 //DISMISSED// 2.4.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.3022 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF APRIL, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C.No.13/98 filed by the first respondent herein as the petitioner before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva, under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. As per order dated 21.4.2001, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.50,000/- as fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance and Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance for the iddat period. The respondent herein filed Crl.R.P.No.74/2001 before the Additional Sessions Court, N.Paravur. As per order dated 24.10.2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge enhanced the amount from Rs.53,000/- to Rs.72,000/-. Pending revision before the Additional Sessions Court, the respondent herein filed Execution Petition as M.P.No.817/2001 before the Magistrate's Court, to realise the amount of Rs.53,000/- as ordered in M.C.No.13/98. The petitioner herein appeared and paid a total amount of CRL.M.C.No.3022/05 -2- Rs.6,000/-. Since he has not discharged the entire liability, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Magistrate's Court on 20.1.2004 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for nine months. Thereafter, the petitioner has undergone the imprisonment till 30.7.2004 in the Central Prison, Viyyur as revealed from Annexure I. Thereafter, on 16.8.2004, the respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.824/2004 before the Magistrate's Court for realisation of the enhanced amount of Rs.19,000/- as ordered in Crl.R.P.No.74/2001, wherein, a distress warrant was issued on 3.9.2005 by the learned Magistrate, copy of which is produced as Annexure-II. Thereafter, on 12.9.2005, the present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court with the prayer to quash the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.824/2004 on the file of Court of J.F.C.M.-I, Aluva. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and for the first respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has no means to discharge the liability as revealed from the report of the Village Officer, copy of which is produced as Annexure IV. The copy of the objection filed by the CRL.M.C.No.3022/05 -3- petitioner herein in the above-mentioned petition, Crl.M.P.No.824/2004 before the Magistrate's Court is produced as Annexure III. It was contended that second execution application filed by the respondent after suppressing the order of the revisional court till the petitioner has undergone the imprisonment in the previous execution petition is an abuse of process of the court and serious miscarriage of justice, which cannot be allowed. 4. The prayer in this petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. On going through the allegations in this petition, it is evident that the original execution petition, M.P.No.817/2001 was filed by the respondent herein for the realisation of the amount in M.C.No.13/98, which was ordered on 21.4.2001, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.53,000/- towards fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance and the maintenance for the iddat period. That has not been discharged and only an amount of Rs.6,000/- was paid as admitted in the petition. Since the balance amount has not been discharged by the petitioner, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for nine months. The petitioner has undergone the imprisonment and released on 30.7.2004. The second CRL.M.C.No.3022/05 -4- execution petition, Crl.M.P.No.824/04 was preferred by the respondent on 16.8.2004 claiming the enhanced amount of Rs.19,000/- ordered by the revisional court on 24.10.2001. It is true that the earlier execution petition M.P.No.817/01 was pending on 24.10.2001 on which date the judgment in the revision has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, N.Paravur. While filing the earlier execution petition, M.P.No.817/2001, that amount cannot be added as the amount due from the petitioner herein and admittedly no such amount has been granted by the revisional court and E.P. has been preferred by the respondent for realisation of the amount already ordered in the M.C. The petitioner herein has no case that he is not liable to pay the enhanced amount as ordered by the revisional court. The judgment has become final and nobody has challenged the finding entered by the revisional court. Therefore, the petitioner herein is bound to discharge that liability and for the non-payment of which Crl.M.P.No.824/04 was preferred by the respondent herein, in which non-bailable warrant was ordered by the learned Magistrate on 3.9.2005. I find no error or impropriety or illegality in the proceedings against the petitioner for realisation of the amount of Rs.19.000/- as claimed in Crl.M.P.No.824/2004. CRL.M.C.No.3022/05 -5- 6. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked only sparingly and with caution, to meet the ends of justice. I find no injustice in this case and therefore no ground for interference in the proceedings initiated in Crl.M.P.No.824/2004 by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn