ORDER
Ku. A. Lekshmikutty, J.
1. This Crl. Miscellaneous case Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is preferred against the common order of the Sessions Court, Manjeri in Cr1. R.P. No. 96 of 1994 and Cr1. R.P. No. 116 of 1994.
2. The revision petitioner has preferred M.C. No. 95 of 1992 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Manjeri Under Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The petitioner is a divorcee and the counter petitioner was her husband. Their marriage took place on 25-12-1980 as per the custom prevailing in the Muslim Community. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife for two months. During 1981, the respondent went abroad as he got a job there. On 19.10.1990 the respondent sent a letter to the brother of the petitioner intimating that he divorced the petitioner. Even after the divorce, the respondent never provided any benefits available to the divorced wife. Hence, the petitioner has filed the petition claiming Rs. 3,000/- towards maintenance during the 1ddat period and Rs. 1.00,000/- towards fair and reasonable provision. Rs. 18,00/- towards the value of ornaments and ready cash Rs. 10,000/- which was misappropriated by the respondent while they were residing together. Petitioner is incapable of maintaining herself. The respondent is earning Rs. 25,000/- per month as salary from his job and Rs. 30,000/- per month towards income from immovable property. Thus the petitioner has claimed a total sum of Rs. 1,28,000/-.
3. The respondent entered appearance and filed his objection. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence awarded an amount of Rs. 1,200/- towards maintenance during the period of 1ddat (at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month for three months) and a sum of Rs. 36,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision. The claim of Rs. 18,000/- towards value of ornaments and Rs. 10,000/- the amount which was allegedly misappropriated by the respondent was disallowed by the trial Court.
4. Against the said judgment, the revision petitioner filed Criminal R.P. No. 116 of 1994 and respondent herein filed Cr1. R.P. No. 96 of 1994 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The Sessions Court, Manjeri, after evaluating the evidence, reduced the amount awarded towards fair and reasonable provision as Rs. 24,000/-. It would appear that the Sessions Judge was under the impression that the maintenance awarded during the 1ddat period is Rs. 200/- per month and so he increased the amount as Rs. 400/- per month and the Criminal R.P. was disposed. Criminal R.P. filed by the respondent was allowed. Hence this Criminal M.C.
5. The point for consideration is whether there is any reasonable ground to quash the order passed by the Sessions Judge.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the legal marriage between the. petitioner and the respondent which took place on 25-12-1980. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the divorce was effected on 19-10-1990. The case of the petitioner is that even after the divorce, the respondent never provided any amount towards maintenance during the period of 1ddat and no fair and reasonable provision was made for her livelihood. Therefore she was forced to file a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrates Court Under Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The trial Court after taking evidence awarded an amount of Rs. 1,200/- towards maintenance during the period of 1ddat for three months and awarded an amount of Rs. 36,000/- towards fair and reasonable provision. It is seen from the records that both petitioner and respondent preferred revision petitions before the Sessions Court. The petitioner herein preferred the revision before the Sessions Court as Cr1. R.P. No. 116 of 1994 for enhancement of the amount, whereas the respondent filed Cr1. R.P. No. 96 of 1994 for reduction of the amount. The Sessions Court after hearing both parties dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent reducing the amount as Rs. 24,000/- towards fair and reasonable provision.
7. Now the present petition is filed by the divorce for quashing the order passed by the Sessions Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was only 26 years old at the time of filing the petition. So far she has not remarried. She is incapable” of maintaining herself and the respondent is having substantial income. The respondent has remarried. The trial Court awarded an amount of Rs. 1,200/- towards maintenance during the 1ddat period. It seems that the Sessions Judge was under the impression that the trial Court has awarded only Rs. 200/-per month towards maintenance and increased as Rs. 400/- per month. Actually, the trial Court has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,200/- as maintenance during the period of 1ddat for three months. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no reason for any interference with the order passed by the Sessions Judge. In support of his argument, he relies on the decision reported in Ahammed v. Aysha 1990 (1) KLT 172. But the said decision has no application as far as the present case is concerned. In the said case, the income of the prior husband was fixed as Rs. 440/- per month and an amount of Rs. 150/ – was awarded as maintenance during the 1ddat period and as reasonable and fair provision, an amount of Rs. 9,000/- was awarded. But in the present case, the contention of the petitioner is that the respondent was working abroad and he was getting an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month as salary and getting Rs. 30,000/- per month as income from his immovable property. Of course, the respondent denied that he has no such income. But he did not say what exactly is his income. The petitioner had produced Ext. P1 which shows that he is holding 52 cents of property. She was only 26 years old at the time of filing the petition which was not denied by the respondent. He has not produced his passport also before Court. So, it has to be found that the respondent has intentionally suppressed the income which he was getting from his job. Now his contention is that he is incapable of doing any work and he returned to India due to a fracture.
8. While enacting Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, the Parliament has accepted the traditional view that right to maintenance cases after the expiry of the 1ddat following talak after declaring and protecting the right of divorced woman to get a fair and reasonable provision being made for her livelihood during the post 1ddat period also from her husband within the period of 1ddat. The respondent has no case that during the period of 1ddat any such provision was made. As per law, the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance during the period of 1ddat. She is also entitled to get fair and reasonable provision for her livelihood till remarriage. Admittedly, no such amount was paid to her. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/-per month during the 1ddat period. The petitioner as PW-1 gave evidence that the respondent was getting an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month as salary and also Rs. 30,000/- per month from the immovable property. As found earlier, the respondent has intentionally suppressed his income. The trial Court awarded an amount of Rs. 36,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision for the livelihood of the petitioner. The social status, financial capacity and potentional of the couple at or during the time of divorce is the main aspect to be reckoned in fixing the quantum. Ad-mittedly, the respondent was employed in foreign country at the time of divorce and he is in possession of 52 cents of landed property. The petitioner is a young lady and she has not remarried so far. The trial Court fixed the above said amount on the basis of the available evidence. The said award is only reasonable. The Sessions Court is not justified in reducing the amount as Rs. 24,000/- based on the decision reported in Ahammed v. Aysha 1990 (1) KLT 172. In the said case, the income of the respondent husband was fixed as Rs. 440/- per month and fair and reasonable provision was made for six years. The original petition was filed in 1992. Now 8 years have been elapsed. There is no special reason to reduce the said amount by the Sessions Court. In these circumstances, the order of the Sessions Court is liable to be quashed.
In the result, the order of the Sessions Court is quashed and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is restored. The Crl. M.C. is allowed.