IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 75 of 2007()
1. M. KUNHIBEEVI, D/O.MAMMYKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.P. SAIDALAVI, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.KRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :23/09/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO.75 OF 2007
===========================
Dated this the 23rd day of September,2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the divorced wife of the
respondent. She filed a petition under section 3
(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act contending that respondent married her
on 3.5.1992 and two children were born in that
wedlock and after three years of the marriage
respondent went abroad and on 16.8.2002, he sent a
letter pronouncing thalakk and respondent did not
pay the maintenance during the Iddat period or made
any reasonable provision for future maintenance of
the wife and therefore she is entitled to get
Rs.40,000/- towards maintenance during the Iddat
period and Rs.1,50,000/- towards fair and
reasonable provision towards future maintenance.
She has also claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards the
value of gold ornaments allegedly taken by
respondent. Respondent resisted the petition
CRRP 75/2007 2
contending that there was mediation and as per the
mediation an agreement was entered into fixing the
fair and reasonable provision at Rs.30,000/- and
respondent is not liable to pay any amount.
2. Learned Magistrate on the evidence of Pws. 1
to 3, RW1 and RW2 and Exts.P1 to P3 found that
there is no evidence to prove that gold ornaments
of the petitioner was taken and utilised by the
respondent and therefore she is not entitled to any
amount under that head. Rejecting the case of the
respondent that he had paid the amount as agreed to
under a mediation, it was found that fair and
reasonable provision for the maintenance was not
paid. Learned Magistrate fixing maintenance at
the rate of Rs.600/- per month, directed the first
respondent to pay Rs.1800/- as maintenance during
the iddat period and also directed to pay
Rs.36,000/- assessed as the maintenance for a
period of 5 years at the rate of Rs.600/- per
month. That order is challenged in this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
CRRP 75/2007 3
was heard.
4. The order passed by the learned Magistrate
is challenged not on the ground that maintenance
fixed by the court is not a fair and reasonable
provision for the future maintenance of the
petitioner or a proper maintenance for the Iddat
period, but on the ground that maintenance
awarded is insufficient to maintain the two
children and respondent has sufficient source of
income to pay maintenance for the children. In a
petition filed under section 3(1) of the Act, the
claim of maintenance of the children is not to be
decided. Inspite of the provisions under the
Muslim Women (P.R.D.) Act, children are entitled to
claim maintenance as provided under section 125 of
Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence there is no
reason to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Magistrate under section 3(1) of the Muslim
Women (P.R.D) Act on the ground that the amount
awarded is insufficient for the maintenance of the
children.
CRRP 75/2007 4
5. Though it is contended that fair and
reasonable provision is too low, on going through
the judgment, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the quantum as it is reasonable and proper.
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006