IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4131 of 2006() ------------------------- CRRP.11/2005 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY MC.44/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- ARAYILAKATHY AFSAL, S/O.MAKKI, SUHARA MANZIL, KUZHIPANGADU, THIRUVANGAD P.O., THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE; ----------------------------------- 1. PARAKKAL BUSHARA, D/O.ASYA, MINNATH MANZIL, CHOKLI AMSOM, KAVIYOOR DESOM, CHOKLI P.O., THALASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4131 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 ORDER This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by a concurrent direction obliging him to pay an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- to the claimant/his divorced wife under Section 3 of the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. 2. On fundamental facts there is no crucial difference. The marriage took place on 04.08.1991. The divorce took place on 06.04.02. There was one child born in the matrimony. The child was aged about 6 years and the wife was aged about 25 years when the divorce took place. The divorce was effected as per an order passed by the civil court under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. The petitioner/husband is employed abroad. The claimant/wife remained as a house wife. The learned Magistrate took the view that the claimant/wife is entitled to a total amount of Rs.4,04,000/- under Section 3 of the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. The court of revision took the view that the claimant/wife is not Crl.M.C. No.4131 of 2006 2 entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- which was directed to be returned to the claimant as the amount paid to the petitioner herein as also an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- which was held to be the value of gold ornaments returnable to the petitioner. The trial court's direction to pay such amount of Rs.2,15,000/- was set aside by the court of revision and the petitioner now faces the direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- only. 3. The liability to pay maintenance during the period of iddat and to make fair and reasonable provisions to the divorced wife is not disputed. The short contention is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 4. I take note of all the relevant circumstances, which I have extracted above. I take note of the fact that a decree for divorce was passed on the ground of contumacious responsibility of the petitioner herein. I do further take note of the fact that the petitioner has been employed abroad at the time of divorce. The spouses remained married for about 11 years and with a 6 year old child the prospects of a remarriage must be held to be bleak if not impossible. 5. There was a contention raised that the wife has remarried. Evidence was attempted to be adduced through RWs Crl.M.C. No.4131 of 2006 3 1 to 3 and Exts.D1 and D2. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the evidence of RWs 1 to 3 and Exts.D1 and D2 are not sufficient to enter a specific finding on remarriage. Moreover it is by now trite that remarriage during the pendency of the proceedings has only a limited impact close to irrelevance while computing the quantum of fair and reasonable provisions and maintenance payable under Section 3 of the said Act at the time of divorce during the period of iddat. 6. I must also alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a a Court having extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the direction to pay Rs.1,89,000/- as fair and reasonable provisions and maintenance under Section 3 of the Act, the courts below have rendered concurrent findings. A second revision is clearly barred in the light of Section 389(3) Cr.P.C and that explains why the petitioner has affixed the label of Section 482 Cr.P.C on this application filed by him. Even a second revision is barred and I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. It is of course not a case of lack of jurisdictional competence. In an appropriate case where the interests of justice compellingly Crl.M.C. No.4131 of 2006 4 demand invocation of such powers, this Court can certainly invoke such powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not at all persuaded to agree that the quantum fixed by the courts below at Rs.1,89,000/- as fair and reasonable provisions and maintenance warrants or demands interference by this Court. The direction thus appears to me to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. At any rate, the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C does not appear to be necessary. 7. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-