//
you're reading...
legal issues

The next contention is that respondent having not made any claim against her former husband is estopped from making a claim against petitioner, her second husband. I do not find any statutory provision or precedent to back that contention. May be, respondent could have made a claim against her former husband also in which case her re-marriage with petitioner would have been a relevant consideration in fixing the amount payable as future maintenance. But in the present proceeding claim is for expenses during the period of iddat following petitioner divorcing the respondent and for her future maintenance. No claim prior to her marriage with the petitioner is involved. Contention that respondent having failed to make a claim against her former husband is estopped from establishing her claims against the petitioner has no legal backing. It has to fail.

Vector image of two human figures with hands i...

Image via Wikipedia

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 26 of 2011()

1. P.ABDURAHIMAN,
 ... Petitioner

 Vs

1. U.K.P.KHADEEJA,
 ... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

 For Petitioner :SRI.C.KHALID

 For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :28/01/2011

 O R D E R
 THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
 --------------------------------------
 Crl.M.C. No.26 of 2011
 --------------------------------------
 Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011.

 ORDER

 Petitioner is the former husband of the respondent who filed M.C.No.168

of 2002 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur under

Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,

1986 (for short, "the Act"). Respondent made various claims of which, only two

claims are allowed, maintenance during the period of iddat and reasonable and

fair provision for future maintenance. Hence it is not necessary to advert to other

claims of the respondent. Respondent claimed `.30,000/- during the period of

iddat and Rupees five lakhs as reasonable and fair provision for future

maintenance. Learned Magistrate found, rejecting the contentions of petitioner

that he is liable to pay `.4,500/- as maintenance during the period of iddat and

`.1,50,000/- as reasonable and fair provision. Learned Sessions Judge in

Crl.R.P.No.27 of 2004 filed by the petitioner has confirmed the said order. The

said orders are under challenge at the instance of petitioner. It is contended by

learned counsel that the amount awarded is exorbitant. According to the learned

counsel, respondent did not make any claim against her first husband and hence

she is estopped from making any claim against petitioner.

 2. This being a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short, "the Code"), limited question is whether the order under

challenge suffers from any illegality or the proceeding was an abuse of process

Crl.M.C.No.26/2011

 2

of law. Even as per the version of petitioner, he is a painter by occupation and

was aged 38 years at the time proceedings were initiated. Respondent was then

aged 29 years. It is not disputed that it was second marriage of petitioner and

respondent and that after pronouncement of thalak on respondent on

31.01.2002 with effect from 04.02.2002, petitioner has contracted a third

marriage and is maintaining that lady. Necessarily I must think that he is

capable of maintaining a family. He was aged 38 years and is able bodied. It is

not shown that petitioner is incapable of earning due to physical infirmity. Hence

it must be presumed that petitioner is capable of earning. Having regard to the

need of a 29 year old lady such as food, clothing, shelters and other basic

necessities, sum of `.1,500/- per month (ie. at the rate of `.50/- a day) awarded

as maintenance during the period of iddat cannot be said to be exorbitant or,

beyond the paying capacity of petitioner.

 3. It is seen that learned Magistrate has awarded a lump sum of

`.1,50,000/- as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. True,

there was no assessment of the amount payable and learned Sessions Judge

has confirmed the said order. Having regard to the age of parties, even if '8' is

taken as the multiplier to be adopted, amount payable as reasonable and fair

provision for future maintenance at the rate of `.1,500/- per month comes to

`.1,44,000/- while what is awarded is `.1,50,000/-. Having regard to the age of

respondent and her need I do not think that the amount awarded is exorbitant so

as to call for interference under Section 482 of the Code.

Crl.M.C.No.26/2011

 3

 4. The next contention is that respondent having not made any claim

against her former husband is estopped from making a claim against petitioner,

her second husband. I do not find any statutory provision or precedent to back

that contention. May be, respondent could have made a claim against her

former husband also in which case her re-marriage with petitioner would have

been a relevant consideration in fixing the amount payable as future

maintenance. But in the present proceeding claim is for expenses during the

period of iddat following petitioner divorcing the respondent and for her future

maintenance. No claim prior to her marriage with the petitioner is involved.

Contention that respondent having failed to make a claim against her former

husband is estopped from establishing her claims against the petitioner has no

legal backing. It has to fail.

 5. On hearing learned counsel and on going through the orders under

challenge I do not find reason to interfere.

 Resultantly this petition fails. It is dismissed.

 THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
 Judge.

cks

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,333 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: