SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

M.M.PAREED PILLAY, T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN
Kunhammed Haji – Appellant
Versus
Amina – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner:T.P. Kelu Nambiar, Sr. Advocate, P.G. Rajagoplam.
For the Respondent: Mr. T.A. Ramadasan.

ORDER

T.V. Ramakrishnan, J. - This Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') was posted ~fore us along with Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1861/1993 by the basis of a common reference order. The specific question referred to the Division Bench has ~ answered by us in Criminal Miscellaneous Case 1861/1993 by a separate judgment and need not be considered again in the case. As per the judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous Case 1861/1993, we have held that the provisions contained in S.397 (3) of the Code will not be a bar for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 of the Code. In the light of the said judgment, it has to be held that this Criminal Miscellaneous case is maintainable in law.

2. Facts, necessary to deal with the contentions on merit raised in the case, can be summarized thus. The 1st respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. She filed Maintenance Case No. 118 of 1989 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, under S. 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). In the petition. 1st respondent claimed (i) an amount equal t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top