Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer

Nabeesa, Aged 45 Years vs M.M. Muhammed, S/O. Mytheen on 9 March, 2007

Cites 6 docs - [View All]

The Indian Divorce Act, 1869

Section 125 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 3(2) in The Indian Divorce Act, 1869

Section 5 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 3(2) in The Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986


Loading...
Kerala High Court
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM  Crl Rev Pet No. 676 of 2006()



1. NABEESA, AGED 45 YEARS,

                      ... Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.M. MUHAMMED, S/O. MYTHEEN,

                       ... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM  For Respondent : No
Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU  Dated :09/03/2007

 O R D E R

                          K.R. UDAYABHANU, J

               =================================

                      CRL. R.P. NO. 676 OF 2006

               =================================

                 Dated this the 9th day of March 2007     O R D E R

   The revision petitioner is the petitioner/wife in   M.C.No.1/2006 filed under
section 3(2) of the Muslim Women   (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
(hereinafter to be   mentioned as the Act). It is the case of the revision
petitioner   that as per order in M.C. No.380/1993 the petitioner and the
child was provided maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- and   subsequently the
same was enhanced to Rs.900/-. Later on   30.10.1998 the respondent/husband
divorced the revision   petitioner and then she has filed the application under
section 3   (2) of the Act. The court below dismissed the application on the
ground that she has received certain amounts towards   maintenance after filing
the petition under section 3(2) of the   Act.



         2. I find that the revision petitioner is not entitled to claim
maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C., she has been divorced   CRL. R.P. NO.
676/2006 : 2 :      except as per the conditions envisaged under section 5 of
the   Act. Just receipt of maintenance allowed ordered under section   125
Cr.P.C will not entitle her to claim the same. The above   aspect has not been
considered by the court below. In the   circumstances, the impugned order is set
aside. The court below   is directed to reconsider the matter and dispose of the
same on   merits. The revision petitioner shall appear before Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam on 10.04.2007. The   respondent/husband has not
entered appearance despite service   of notice. The court below shall dispose of
the matter at the   earliest.

    K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.

  RV

  CRL. R.P. NO. 676/2006 : 3 :