Y.M.Basheer vs Nahukannu Ramla Beevi on 20 March, 2007

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM  Crl Rev Pet No. 491 of 1996()



1. Y.M.BASHEER

                      ... Petitioner

                        Vs

1. NAHUKANNU RAMLA BEEVI

                       ... Respondent

                For Petitioner :SRI.N.GOVINDAN NAIR

                For Respondent :SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)  The Hon'ble MR.
Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

 Dated :20/03/2007

 O R D E R

                              K.R.UDAYABHANU, J

                         ---------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.No.491 of 1996

                          ---------------------------------------------  Dated
this the 20th day of March, 2007

     ORDER

   The revision petitioner is the counter petitioner in   M.C.14/91 instituted
by the respondent bank seeking reliefs   under the Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Divorce)   Act, 1986. A sum of Rs.2,15,500/- was claimed altogether,
Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance during the Iddath period,   Rs.1,00,000/-
towards fair provision, Rs.30,000/- towards   Acharam amount, Rs.25,000/- paid
to the counter petitioner for   procuring job abroad, Rs.500/- towards costs of
watch given to   the petitioner, Rs.5,000/- Mahar agreed to be paid and
Rs.40,000/- towards the cost of gold ornaments allegedly   appropriated by the
counter petitioner.



       2. The appellate court in revision applications filed by   both sides
disposed of the matter, allowing the application in   part filed by the
petitioner and directed to pay an amount of   Rs.4,500/- as maintenance for
Iddath period, a sum of   Rs.1,00,000/- as reasonable and fair provision and
Rs.40,000/-   CRRP494/96 Page numbers      towards the value of the 20
sovereigns of gold ornaments and   Rs.501/- under Section 31(b) of the Act
towards acharam amount   received.



      3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted the   testimony of PW's 1
to 3 and Exts. P1 to P6, at the instance of   the petitioner in the M.C. and
CPW's 1 and 2 and Exts. B1 and   B2 produced at the instance of the counter
petition/revision   petitioner. It has came out from evidence adduced in the
matter   that the revision petitioner is employed in the Middle East and   his
monthly salary is over Rs.20,000/- per month and that he has   got also
immovable properties from which he is deriving income.   The courts have
concurrently found that the evidence adduced in   the matter do established the
case of the respondent/petitioner   in the M.C. The courts below have considered
the evidence   adduced in the matter in a meticulous manner. It is found that
the amount claimed towards fair provision is only reasonable.   The amount
claimed towards the value of 20 sovereigns as   Rs.40,000/- was allowed as
claimed. The rest of the claims were   also allowed with proportionate reduction
considering the   evidence adduced in the matter. In view of the concurrent
CRRP494/96 Page numbers      findings of the court below, I find that there is
no scope for   interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this
court.

 In the circumstances revision petition is dismissed. The   order of the
appellate court is confirmed.      K.R.UDAYABHANU,

                                                                        JUDGE

 csl