IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TH MONDAY, THE 4 DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.REV.PET NO. 667 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 83/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-III KOZHIKODE MC 223/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

MUJEEB RAHIMAN AGED 46 YEARS S/O. ALIKOYA, ARIPPURATHUPOYIL HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR P.O, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE-673 611 BY ADVS.

NIRMAL. S SMT.VEENA HARI SMT.RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH SMT.IRENE ELZA SOJI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & STATE:

1 THASLEENA, AGED 40 YEARS D/O. ABDURAHIMAN, ARIPURATHUPOYILIL HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR P.O, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE-673 611

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.

R1 BY ADV N.V.P.RAFEEQUE SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, ALONG WITH RPFC.212/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TH MONDAY, THE 4 DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944 RPFC NO. 212 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 101/2018 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

MUJEEB RAHIMAN,AGED 45 YEARS S/O. ALIKOYA, ARIPPURATHUPOYIL HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR P.O, KAKKODI, CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION LIMIT, KOZHIKODE-673 611 BY ADVS.

NIRMAL. S SMT.VEENA HARI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

1 THASLEENA AGED 39 YEARS D/O. ABDURAHIMAN, ARIPURATHUPOYILIL HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR P.O, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE-673 611

2 MINA FATHIMA, AGED 17 YEARS D/O. MUJEEB RAHIMAN, (2ND MINOR PETITIONER REP. BY MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER M.C.),CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION LIMIT.

BY ADV SRI.N.V.P.RAFEEQUE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.667/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R.”

O R D E R Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2022 The husband, who is the petitioner in both the above revision petitions, challenges two orders passed by two courts in two different proceedings initiated by the wife.

2. MC No.223/2017 has been filed by the wife against her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Magistrate as per the order dated 15/01/2019 allowed the said MC against the husband/the respondent No.1 therein and the following reliefs were granted.

“(1) First respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the first petitioner towards her monthly maintenance from the date of petition i.e, on 15.11.2017 to the date of pronouncement of third talaq i.e, on 08.02.2018. He is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month for the maintenance of the second petitioner and Rs.3,000/- per month for the educational expenses of the second petitioner from the date of the petition till her marriage.

(2) The first respondent is hereby directed to provide alternative accommodation suitable for the status of the second petitioner at Calicut city where she is studying within one month from the date of this order failing which the second petitioner can take suitable house or flat on rent and claim the rent of the accommodation periodically from the first respondent against the valid receipt issued by the landlord.

(3) First respondent is directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month towards the rent from the date of petition till the date of this order.”

3. The husband challenged the above order at the appellate court as Crl.Appeal No.83/2019. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as per the order dated 7^th July 2020. Crl.R.P.No.667/2020 has been filed by the husband challenging the above two orders.

4. The wife and one child filed another petition as MC No.101/2018 against the husband at the Family Court, Kozhikode u/s 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C) claiming maintenance. The Family Court after trial allowed the said MC also and the hu