//
you're reading...
legal issues

Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam in Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2007. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 08.12.1996, and on 08.07.1998 he divorced her. Respondent No.1 claimed various amounts including `.10,000/- as expenses during the period of iddat and Rupees five lakhs as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. She alleged that petitioner has fifty cents and a house and another one acre of land.

Vytilla junction, National Highway Authority o...

Image via Wikipedia

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 851 of 2010()

1. ANAZ, S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI,
 ... Petitioner

 Vs

1. SHEEBA, D/O. NAVOORKANI,
 ... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRSENTED BY

 For Petitioner :SRI.M.TRIPTEN

 For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :22/02/2011

 O R D E R
 THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
 --------------------------------------
 Crl.M.C. No.851 of 2010
 --------------------------------------
 Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011.

 ORDER

 Respondent in M.C.No.26 of 2000 of the court of learned Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha challenges the order passed by that court under

Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act as

confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam in

Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2007. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1

on 08.12.1996, and on 08.07.1998 he divorced her. Respondent No.1 claimed

various amounts including `.10,000/- as expenses during the period of iddat and

Rupees five lakhs as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. She

alleged that petitioner has fifty cents and a house and another one acre of land.

It is also her case that petitioner has a plywood mill at Perumbavoor and 25

cents of land at Muvattupuzha. She alleged that petitioner is earning `.30,000/-

per month. Petitioner denied that he has landed properties and plywood mill as

alleged. Petitioner claimed that he is only an employee in the plywood mill.

Learned Magistrate awarded `.4,000/- as expenses during the period of iddat

and `.1,50,000/- as reasonable and fair provision for maintenance while other

claims made by respondent No.1 were rejected. That order though challenged

by petitioner was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision.

Petitioner has come to this Court challenging that order under Section 482 of the

Crl.MC No.851/2010

 2

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Learned counsel contended

that there is no evidence to show that petitioner has any property or income as

pleaded by respondent No.1 and even the evidence of respondent No.1 as PW1

is that she has no direct knowledge about the assets of petitioner stated in

the claim petition.

 2. It is true that when examined as PW1 respondent No.1 stated that

she has not seen any document regarding property allegedly belonging to the

petitioner. She stated that her information is what the petitioner had told her. I

must bear in mind that respondent No.1 is the divorced wife of petitioner and

that atleast for two years they lived together. It is not disputed that respondent

No.1 is a B.Sc. B.Ed graduate. Apparently, it is difficult to think that she would

be married to an employee in a plywood mill. It is reasonable to think that her

parents would have found a husband suitable to her educational qualification. I

must also consider the aged of the parties. Though age of respondent No.1 is

not given in this proceeding, age of petitioner is given as 35 at the relevant

time. Naturally respondent No.1 must have been aged less. What is awarded

as expenses during the period of iddat is only `.4,000/- (for three months) which

does not even came to `.50/- a day. The total amount awarded for reasonable

and fair provision for maintenance is only `.1,50,000/- Amount has to be fixed

having regard to the socio-economic back ground of parties. I stated that

Crl.MC No.851/2010

 3

respondent No.1 is a B.Sc. B.Ed. graduate. Having regard to the educational

qualification I am inclined to think the socio-economic condition of petitioner will

be similar to that of respondent No.1. Having regard to the evidence given by

respondent No.1 and taking into account the cost of living, I do not find reason

to interfere with the award for expenses during the period of iddat and

reasonable and fair provision for maintenance under Section 482 of the Code .

 Petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months' time from

this day to deposit the amount in the trial court. Proceedings in execution if any

shall stand in abeyance during the said period of two months.

 THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
 Judge.

cks

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,325 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: