IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2950 of 2009() ------------------------- CRRP.64/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE MC.55/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NADAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- YASAR ARAFATH, S/O.USMANKOYA, 1/484, NR.KSRTC WORKSHOP, EAST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. SHERBINA, D/O.AHAMMED, EDATHIL HOUSE, NARIMATTOM AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2950 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 13th October 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the respondent in M.C.55/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram. First respondent is the divorced wife, who filed the said petition under Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act claiming maintenance for the Iddath period, fair and reasonable provision as well as value of gold ornaments misappropriated by the petitioner. Under Annexure-1 order learned Magistrate finding that petitioner and respondent belong to upper middle class families and taking into consideration their status and capacity, fixed Rs.2,500/- as monthly maintenance for the Iddath period. Based on the same assessment, computing the period of maintenance of five years, fair and reasonable provision was directed to be paid. Accepting the case of the respondent that respondent was given 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments which were misappropriated by the petitioner, a direction was issued to pay its value of Rs.2,10,000/- calculating only at Rs.3,500/- per CRMC 2950/09 2 sovereign. 2. Petitioner challenged the order before the Sessions court, Kozhikode in Crl.R.P.64/2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the order and dismissed the revision. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-2 order as no second revision is maintainable. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 4. Learned counsel has taken me through the depositions of the petitioner and the first respondent, before the learned Magistrate and argued that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that respondent was having 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments or that petitioner misappropriated the same or that petitioner is having 11 JCBs or the capacity to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as found by the courts below and sought modification of the quantum. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any reason to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute the factual findings of learned Magistrate which was already confirmed exercising the revisional CRMC 2950/09 3 powers, by the Sessions Judge. Both courts have rightly considered the relevant and essential facts while fixing the quantum of fair and reasonable provision as well as maintenance during the Iddath period. Even though learned counsel argued that there is no evidence to prove that 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the first respondent or it was misappropriated, nobody can expect documentary evidence with regard to the gold ornaments owned by the wife or misappropriated by the husband. All depends on the veracity, credibility and trust worthiness of the witnesses. When the learned Magistrate who is having the benefit of seeing the witnesses, appreciated the evidence, accepted the evidence of the wife and learned Sessions Judge on re-consideration of evidence confirmed it under Annexure-2 order. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is more so as the quantum fixed is only reasonable, especially when the value of gold ornaments fixed is only Rs.3,500/- per sovereigns. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.