IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2498 of 2007() ------------------------------ MC.4/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- I, ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- K.M.ASHARAF, S/O.MARAKKAR, KANJIRATHINKAL, PIPE LINE ROAD, THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & STATE: ------------------------- 1. REMIM K.UMMER, D/O.K.K.UMMER ALI RAWTHER, KANJIRAMKALAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL FOR R1 SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRRP2498/2008 OR DER ON CRL.M.A.7110 OF 2008 IN CRRP 2498 OF 2008 DISMISSED 24.10.2008 SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. Okb/- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 2498 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Revision is filed by the counter petitioner in M.C.4 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor challenging the order passed by learned Magistrate under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 directing him to pay Rs.11,69,101/- being the maintenance for the iddat period as well as for the fair and reasonable provision. First respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent were heard . 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that the impugned order was passed without serving notice on the petitioner and without affording opportunity to him to meet the contentions raised by the first respondent. The records from the Magistrate was called for. It is seen from the records that in the petition filed by first respondent under section 3 of the Act, notice was issued on 1.2.2005. But the notice was returned CRRP 2498/07 2 unserved. Again notice was repeated. Finally on 27.1.2006 notice on the revision petitioner was found not served. Learned Magistrate directed first respondent to take notice through the Station House Officer, Aluva Town police station, either directly or by affixture and posted the case to 22.4.2006. But on the very next day the case was suo motu advanced and thereafter posted the case for recording evidence to 25.5.2006 and thereafter examined first respondent and her witnesses and finally passed the impugned order. Though learned counsel appearing for first respondent argued that as an order of attachment of the immovable property was passed against the petitioner, petitioner is to be imputed with the knowledge of the case, records do not show that even in that attachment proceedings, notice was served on the revision petitioner. Even the order of attachment was not served on the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner did not appear in that case at any stage. In such circumstances, learned Magistrate himself found that notice was not served and is to be served on the revision petitioner, either directly or by affixture and directed first respondent to take notice through Station House Officer. But on the very next day the case was suo motu advanced without recording any reason CRRP 2498/07 3 why notice ordered on the previous day was dispensed with and why the case is to be disposed without serving notice on the petitioner. In such circumstances revision is allowed. The order passed on 30.3.2007 without notice in M.C.4 of 2006 is set aside. M.C. 4 of 2006 is remanded to Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor to dispose it afresh after granting opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Petitioner and first respondent are directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor on 27.11.2008. No fresh notice need be sent to the petitioner. Send back the records immediately. Learned Magistrate is directed to dispose the case expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from 27.11.2008. Learned Magistrate may also take into account, the amount which was allowed to be withdrawn by first respondent pursuant to the order of this Court, while passing the final order. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-