2025:KER:28589 Crl.M.C.No.7034/2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 7034 OF 2019 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER DATED 07.02.2019 IN CRL.R.P NO.1 OF 2016 OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY AND THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2015 IN MC NO.10 OF 2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,TALIPARAMBA IN KANNUR DISTRICT. PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN M.C.: VADESWARATH ABDUL KHADER, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED M.P., RESIDING AT PARAMMAL HOUSE, EZOME AMSOM NARIKODE DESOM, KOTTILA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT PIN-670334. BY ADVS.R.SURENDRAN KUM.S.MAYUKHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN M.C & STATE: 1 MUTTUKKARATHI PUTHIYAPURAYIL HAJIRA ALIAS MUTTUKKARAN HAJIRA, AGED 51 YEARS D/O. M.IBRAHIM, PARIYARAM MUKKUNNU DESOM, P.O. KUPPAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 141. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI. SANGEETHARAJ N.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON 04.04.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28589 Crl.M.C.No.7034/2019 2 O R D E R The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1/2016 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thalassery, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the orders passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Taliparamba and Sessions Court, Thalassery in the matter relating to the claim of the first respondent seeking reliefs under the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The first respondent instituted M.C.No.10/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba claiming a total amount of Rs.5,89,000/- from the petitioner under various heads of reliefs as per the provisions of the Act. She got married to the petitioner on 07.07.1985, but was divorced by Talaque on 16.12.2013. The Trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- as fair and reasonable provision and maintenance, and an amount of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance during iddat period. While upholding the above verdict of the Trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery, in revision, directed payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum also for the amount outstanding to be paid to the first respondent. 2025:KER:28589 Crl.M.C.No.7034/2019 3 Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Sessions Judge upholding the verdict of the Trial Court, the petitioner is here before this Court with this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. In the present petition, the petitioner, for the first time, has raised a challenge against the legal validity of his marriage with the first respondent. According to the petitioner, he came to know after the disposal of the revision petition by the Sessions Court that the first respondent had already married a person by name Madapuram Moidu, S/o.Ettilam Ammanath, Peralam Amsom Desom, Taliparamba Taluk, Kannur in the year 1985, and that it was during the subsistence of the above marriage that she contracted the marriage with the petitioner. In support of the above allegation, the petitioner has produced Annexure-5 document which is the certified copy of a registered agreement between the first respondent and the above said Madapuram Moidu executed on 16.02.1990, wherein it is stated that the first respondent and the above said Madapuram Moidu are continuing their relationship as husband and wife ever since the solemnisation of their marriage in the year 1985, and that a child by 2025:KER:28589 Crl.M.C.No.7034/2019 4 name Anzar, aged 3 years was born in that wedlock. In the above agreement, the first respondent and the above said Madapuram Moidu, who are said to be the signatories thereunder, had reiterated their commitment to continue their marital relationship without any break. Thus, according to the petitioner, the marriage of the first respondent with him is void since it was contracted by suppressing the subsisting marriage of the first respondent with the above said Madapuram Moidu. Accordingly, it is argued that the first respondent cannot claim the status of divorced wife of the petitioner since there was no legal marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a challenge against the validity of the marriage with the first respondent at this stage in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging the concurrent verdicts of the Sessions Court and Magistrate granting reliefs under the provisions of the Act. 6. It is true that the petitioner has come forward with a challenge against the validity of his marriage with the first respondent at a stage when normally such a challenge will not be entertained by 2025:KER:28589 Crl.M.C.No.7034/2019 5 any legal forum. But, as far as the present case is concerned, it is pertinent to note that Annexure-5 document relied on by the petitioner in support of the aforesaid contention, is the certified copy of a registered document containing the full particulars of the first respondent including the name of her son which she had mentioned in the petition filed before the learned Magistrate. Probably, the original of the said document in the relevant register maintained at the Sub Registrar Office concerned, would contain the thumb impression of the signatories. Therefore, it is not a tedious task to ascertain whether the first respondent was actually a signatory to that agreement. If it is found that the first respondent is a signatory to the above agreement, then the challenge raised by the petitioner herein deserves serious consideration due to the matrimonial fraud which might be exposed in connection with the marriage of the first respondent with the petitioner. Therefore, it is not possible to discard the challenge raised by the petitioner in the above regard for the reason that it was not raised before the Trial Court or the Revisional Court. The explanation offered by the petitioner that he came to know about the aforesaid agreement only after the disposal of the case by the Revisional Court, cannot be ignored. At any rate, it is 2025:KER:28589 Crl.M.C.No.7034/2019 6 highly necessary to ascertain the truth behind the execution of Annexure-5 agreement purportedly by the first respondent with another person whose name figures in that agreement as the person who married her in the year 1985. Therefore, the matter has to be remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in the light of the challenge raised by the petitioner against the validity of his marriage with the first respondent in view of Annexure-5 agreement disclosing the subsisting marriage of the first respondent with another person right from the year 1985 onwards. 7. Another challenge raised by the petitioner against the impugned order of the Revisional Court is that the claim of the first respondent seeking reliefs under the provisions of the Act was barred by limitation, and that the courts below failed to consider the above aspect while deciding the petition in favour of the first respondent. The aforesaid challenge about the bar of limitation is devoid of merit for the reason that the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for seeking the reliefs provided thereunder. The provisions contained in the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable to a legislation like the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986, enacted for eliminating destitution of divorced Muslim women. 2025:KER:28589 Crl.M.C.No.7034/2019 7 Applying the provisions of the Limitation Act to such welfare legislations would eventually defeat the purpose of such enactments. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner about the bar of limitation, cannot be entertained. 8. As a conclusion to the above discussion, I find that the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate in M.C.No.10/2007 and the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.1/2016 are liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal after considering the evidence relating to the execution of Annexure-5 agreement. In the result, the petition stands allowed as follows: i) The order dated 07.02.2019 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery in Crl.R.P.No.1/2016, and the order dated 20.11.2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba in M.C.No.10/2007 are hereby set aside. ii) The case is remanded back to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity to the original respondent (petitioner herein) to bring in evidence pertaining to Annexure-5 document (Document No.25/1990) registered at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Payyannur. 2025:KER:28589 Crl.M.C.No.7034/2019 8 iii) If the original respondent files an application for recalling PW1 for further cross-examination in respect of Annexure-5 document, the learned Magistrate shall allow that application. iv) If the scientific analysis of the thumb impression of the original petitioner in Document No.25/1990 of the Sub Registrar’s Office, Payyannur, is found to be necessary to ascertain its authenticity, the learned Magistrate shall take steps in that regard. v) Sufficient opportunity shall be provided to the original petitioner (first respondent herein) also to adduce further evidence pertaining to the above said document, if she so prefers. vi) Subject to the decision in the case after considering the above aspects, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders regarding the amount already paid by the original respondent, and the further amount, if any, he is liable to pay. Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 19.05.2025. (sd/-) G. GIRISH, JUDGE jsr 2025:KER:28589 Crl.M.C.No.7034/2019 9 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7034/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 24.3.2007 IN M.C.10 OF 2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TALIPARAMBA. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 31.8.2015 IN MC 1O OF 2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TALIPARAMBA. ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2015 IN M.C 10 OF 2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TALIPARAMBA. ANNEXURE 4 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2019 IN CRL.R.P NO.1 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY. ANNEXURE 5 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16.2.1990 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND SRI. MADAPURAM MOIDU AND REGISTERED BEFORE THE SRO PAYYANNUR, AS DOCUMENT NO.25 OF 1990.