Image via Wikipedia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 851 of 2010()
1. ANAZ, S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI,
1. SHEEBA, D/O. NAVOORKANI,
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRSENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.TRIPTEN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
Crl.M.C. No.851 of 2010
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011.
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
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
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.