IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1340 of 2001()
1. HASSAINAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RANNA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.C.ELDHO
For Respondent :SRI.S.SHYAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :13/10/2008
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================
Crl.R.P. No.1340 of 2001
===============================
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008.
O R D E R
Revision petitioner, respondent and their counsel remained
absent. There is no representation.
2. Order dated 9.2.2001 passed by learned Judicial First
Class Magistrate-II, Aluva, under Section 3 of Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, (hereinafter called as ‘the
Act’), is under challenge at the instance of revision petitioner,
former husband. Respondent claimed that revision petitioner
married her on 12.12.94 as per Muslim religious rights and
ceremonies and a child was born in the wedlock on 19.12.1996.
Unable to bear the ill treatment of revision petitioner, she filed
O.P.No.410/1999 in the Family Court, Ernakulam, for dissolution
of marriage. She got a decree in her favour on 31.7.1999. She
claimed value of mehar, Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance for
the period of iddat and Rs.10,00,000/- for future maintenance of
herself and son who, at the relevant time was studying in a
convent school at Kalamassery. She claimed that revision
Crl.R.P. No.1340 of 2001 2
petitioner is earning anything not less than Rs.15,000/- per
month. She gave evidence as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 and P2.
Revision petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence and instead,
proved Ext.D1. Learned magistrate allowed Rs.8,000/- being the
value of mehar, Rs.4,500/- towards expenses during the period
of iddat and Rs.1,44,000/- as reasonable and fare provision for
future maintenance for respondent and son. That order is under
challenge.
3. It is contended in the revision petition that the order
under challenge is illegal. It is also contended that respondent
was not a Muslim at the time of marriage.
4. Ex t.P2 which is the copy of order dated 31.7.1999 of
Family Court, Ernakulam shows that though ex-parte, that court
allowed the prayer of respondent for dissolution of marriage.
Respondent gave evidence as PW1 and stated that though she
was a Hindu, she fell in love with revision petitioner, embraced
Islam and thereafter revision petitioner married her. No contra
evidence was adduced by revision petitioner in the court below
and the Family court also entertained the application filed by
Crl.R.P. No.1340 of 2001 3
revision petitioner for dissolution of marriage. There is nothing
illegal or irregular in the court below accepting the version of
respondent that there was a valid marriage.
5. So far as value of mehar is concerned, learned
magistrate accepted the evidence of respondent as PW1.
Evidence revealed that parties are placed in reasonably good
financial condition. Revision petitioner is running a Gas Agency
at Palarivattom. According to the respondent, revision petitioner
is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. No contra evidence is
adduced by the revision petitioner. In these circumstances, I do
not find anything illegal or irregular the court below in accepting
the evidence of respondent regarding mehar and its value.
Rs.4,500/- was awarded as maintenance during the period of
iddat, which is only at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month, which in
the given facts of the case, cannot be said to be excessive. Court
below observed that Rs.1,200/- per month will be sufficient for
future maintenance and taking 10 as multiplier, since respondent
was aged 28 years at the relevant time, awarded Rs.1,44,000/-
towards reasonable and fare provision for future maintenance.
Crl.R.P. No.1340 of 2001 4
It is taking into account the financial position of the parties and
capacity of revision petitioner that the order is passed. No
interference is called for on any ground. Revision petition fails
and it is accordingly dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
bkn/-