Kerala High Court
A.M.Musthafa Musaliyar vs Amina Aged 33 Years on 29 July, 2009
Author: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2472 of 2009()
1. A.M.MUSTHAFA MUSALIYAR, 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AMINA AGED 33 YEARS,D/O.POTHUVACHOLAYIL
... Respondent
2. MUHAMMED ABDUL JALAL (MINOR)
3. SWALIHA BABU (MINOR) 11 YEARS,
4. SOUFIDA (MINOR) AGED 10 YEARS,
5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :29/07/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO. 2472 OF 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated 29th July 2009
O R D E R
Petitioner, the counter petitioner in M.C.1/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of maintenance granted by the Magistrate under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as no second revision is maintainable. Under order dated 30/11/2005 learned Magistrate granted monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- to the wife Rs.400/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.300/- each for the three children. Petitioner challenged that order before sessions court in Crl.R.P.23/2006. As per order dated 19/2/2009, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision. This petition is filed contending that the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge did not properly consider the evidence.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that even if the CRMC 2472/09 2 orders are not interfered, under Annexure-A3 judgment in O.S.21/2001 a decree was passed jointly and severally against first respondent and her mother directing them to pay Rs.98,996.65 and therefore petitioner is to be permitted to adjust the decree debt from the maintenance payable as Annexure-A3 judgment is confirmed in appeal under Annexure-A4 judgment.
3. On hearing the learned counsel I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 30/11/2005 passed by learned Magistrate or the order dated 19/2/2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge. Learned Magistrate on the evidence found that petitioner is a Khatneeb and is having sufficient income and therefore directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- to the wife and Rs.400/- to the eldest child and Rs.300/- each for other two children. Learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence and confirmed it. In exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not for this court re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the factual findings. Though learned counsel CRMC 2472/09 3 submitted that petitioner is to be permitted to adjust the amount due to him under Annexure-A3 and A4 judgments from the maintenance amount payable to first petitioner it is not to be considered by this court in this petition. If petitioner is entitled to the amount due under the decree, petitioner is entitled to execute the decree and realise it in accordance with law.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.