O R D E R

This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed challenging Annexures-A1 & A2 orders. Annexure-A1 is an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode in MC No. 33/2015, which is filed by the 1^st respondent herein, under Sec.3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'Act, 1986'). The learned Magistrate allowed the petitioner directing the respondent to pay Rs. 30,000/- as maintenance for the iddat period and Rs.9,60,000/- towards fair and reasonable provision. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P. No. 78/2017 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by these orders, Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

3. Two points are raised by the petitioner. The

1^st one is that the learned Magistrate passed Annexure-A1 order, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file a counter and also denied opportunity to adduce evidence. The 2^nd contention is that the fair and reasonable provision is assessed by the learned Magistrate for a period of 8 years. The learned counsel submitted that no specific reason is mentioned for taking 8 years to calculate the fair and reasonable provision.

4. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner. The 1^st contention is that he was not given sufficient opportunity to file a counter affidavit and to contest the matter. This contention was considered by the revisional court in detail in paragraph 8 of Annexure-A2. Paragraph 8 of Annexure-A2 is extracted hereunder :

8. “While considering the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it can be seen from the records that more than sufficient opportunity has been granted by the court below to the revision petitioner to file his counter affidavit and contest the matter. The proceedings show that after taking the MC into files, it was posted to 21-01-2016. On that day, the revision petitioner had appeared and the matter was posted for counter affidavit to 01-3-2016. It is seen that on 01-3-2016, no counter affidavit was filed and the case was posted for counter affidavit finally to 30-4- 2016. Again, on 30-4-2016, the case was posted to 25-6-2016 for counter affidavit. On 25-6-2016, the revision petitioner was represented by a counsel, but still, no counter affidavit was filed, and the case was posted to 15-7-2016 for counter affidavit as NFT. Again on 15-7-2016, no counter affidavit was filed, and the case was posted to 19-8-2016 for the evidence of the respondent Therein. The records also show that on 19-8-2016, the evidence of respondent herein was recorded, and the counsel for the revision petitioner did not cross examine her and the case was posted for revision petitioner's evidence. On 23- 9-2016, the revision petitioner was absent, and there was no representation and the evidence was closed. Subsequently, on 29-9-2016, the matter was reopened and since the affidavit in lieu of chief examination is not acceptable, the respondent herein was examined as PW1 on 21-10-2016, and orders were passed on 26-10-2016. It is pertinent to note that neither the revision petitioner nor his counsel had appeared before the court below after 19-8- 2016. So, going by the proceedings, it can be seen that time was granted to the revision petitioner at least from 21-01-2016 onwards till 15-7-2016 which is almost six months. It is also relevant to note that even thereafter, till the respondent herein was examined on 21-10-2016, the revision petitioner had not taken any steps to bring his counter affidavit on record. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner was abroad during these times is accepted as correct, I am of the view that he had more than sufficient opportunity and time to plac