Abdul Azeez vs Rasnabi

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided May 29, 2020

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1752341

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1752341
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice T.V.Anilkumar
Decided On: May 29, 2020
Case Number: Crl.MC/2176/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Azeez

Respondent

Rasnabi

Excerpt

.....this criminal misc. case having been finally heard on 29.05.2020, the court on the same day passed the following: -: 2 :- dated this the 29th day of may,2020o r d e rthe original respondent in m.c. no.90/2013 thamarassery is before this court challenging theorder dismissing his crl.r.p. no.33/2016 passed bythe learned special additional sessions judge (marad cases), kozhikode.2. the challenge appears to be against theorder confirming the decision of the learnedmagistrate fixing an amount of rs.9,000/- towards iddat maintenance and awarding an amount of rs.1,41,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision and future maintenance under section 3 of muslim women (protection of rights on divorce) act, 1986.3. i heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the first respondent.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to pay the amount of maintenance as ordered by both courts below. -: 3 :-substance of his submission is that he is not inclined to proceed with the challenge against the impugned revisional order. his only plea is to give him a breathing time to make payment of the amount and discharge his liability. his submission is recorded. in the result, this crl.m.c. is dismissed as not pressed. at the same time, the coercive proceedings if pending against the petitioner thamarassery, shall stand deferred for a period of one month from today so as to enable the petitioner to raise the amount. sd/- t.v.anilkumar,judge dst //true copy/ p.a.to judge -: 4 :-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1942 Crl.MC.No.2176 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-11-2016 IN CRRP NO.33/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT(SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL FOR MARADU CASES)KOZHIKODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-03-2016 IN MC NO.90/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THAMARASSERY PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O UMMER MAKKIL HOUSE, PUTHOOR AMSOM DESOM, OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER: 1 RASNABI, AGED 20 YEARS , D/O ABDUL KADER, POVVAHOIDUKAYIL (H), KIZHKOTH AMSOM DESOM KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DIST. 2 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADVS. SRI.N.V.MUHAMMED BASHEER SRI.S.K.SAJU

OTHER PRESENT: PP-SRI.P.N.SUMODU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -: 2 :- Dated this the 29th day of May,2020

O R D E R

The original respondent in M.C. No.90/2013 Thamarassery is before this Court challenging the

order dismissing his Crl.R.P. No.33/2016 passed by

the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode.

2. The challenge appears to be against the

order confirming the decision of the learned

Magistrate fixing an amount of RS.9,000/- towards iddat maintenance and awarding an amount of Rs.1,41,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision and future maintenance under Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the first respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to pay the amount of maintenance as ordered by both courts below. -: 3 :-

Substance of his submission is that he is not inclined to proceed with the challenge against the impugned revisional order. His only plea is to give him a breathing time to make payment of the amount and discharge his liability. His submission is recorded. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed as not pressed. At the same time, the coercive proceedings if pending against the petitioner Thamarassery, shall stand deferred for a period of one month from today so as to enable the petitioner to raise the amount. Sd/- T.V.ANILKUMAR,JUDGE DST //True copy/ P.A.To Judge -: 4 :-

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2020 Same Parties Abdul Azeez vs Rasnabi Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice T.V.Anilkumar