IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3389 of 2004(C) ------------------------------- CRL.R.P.65/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI MC.4/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT NO.1/CR. PETITIONER ------------------------------- HAMEED M., S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI(LATE), TEACHER, MOORKKAN HOUSE, KAKKARA PULVETTA P.O., PUNNARKKAD VIA, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS: REV. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------- 1. HAMEEDA, D/O.HAMEED, KOORIYATTU VETTAM, PARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAMBOOR, VALAMBOOR P.O., PATTIKAD VIA. PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.3389 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 1st April, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in a proceeding under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). The first respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the wife', claiming the status of a divorced Muslim woman filed a petition under Section 3 of the Act against the revision petitioner, her former husband, hereinafter referred to as 'the husband'. A sum of Rs.8,40,000/- was claimed under various heads as due to her towards reasonable and fair provision, maintenance, refund of the value of ornaments etc. from her husband. The husband resisted the application contending that he had already paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- as Matah and the various other claims made by the wife are unsustainable. The wife examined two witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 including herself, and the husband examined three witnesses C.P.Ws.1 to 3. The husband also got marked Exts.D1 to D3 as documentary evidence to resist the claim. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the materials produced by both sides, awarded Rs.30,000/- as reasonable and fair provision and Rs.1500/- towards expenses for the iddah period, and Crl.R.P.3389/04 - 2 - thus a total sum of Rs.31,500/- was granted. The order of the Magistrate was challenged by the wife by way of revision before the learned Sessions Judge contending that the sum awarded towards reasonable and fair provision and also towards expenses for the iddah period was meagre and it did not take into account the income potentiality of the husband and also status of the parties. The learned Sessions Judge, after examining the materials in the case, arrived at the conclusion that the sum ordered by the Magistrate was not satisfactory and it required modification. Taking into account the various factors applicable in arriving at reasonable and fair provision and having regard to the income potentiality of the husband, a sum of Rs.750/- per month was found payable to meet the future expenses of the wife and, adopting a multiplier of 10, a total sum of Rs.90,000/- was directed to be paid as reasonable and fair provision. Towards the expenses for Iddah period, a sum of Rs.1000/- per month was fixed and calculated for three months, the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-. Thus, a total sum of Rs.93,000/- was directed to be paid by the husband while rejecting her claims on other heads which had already been negatived by the Magistrate but pursued in the revision. Contending that the amount awarded is highly excessive and unreasonable, the husband has Crl.R.P.3389/04 - 3 - come up with this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. The wife had married twice previously and she had already collected Matah from her former husbands, which is admitted in her evidence, the parties have lived together only for a very short time, less than three years, the husband is getting a meagre income of Rs.2175/- per month employed as a High School Assistant, he has married again and, thus, he has to lookafter his present wife etc. are the circumstances canvassed by the learned counsel for the husband to urge that a reduction in the sum awarded by the learned Sessions Judge towards reasonable and fair provision and expenses for the Iddah period to the wife is warranted to meet the ends of justice. Resisting the challenge, the learned counsel for the wife contended that there is absolutely no evidence on the materials produced in the case to show that wife had received Matah from her former husband and, further, having regard to the needs of the wife in the present day where prices of commodities are rising day by day, the amount fixed by the learned Sessions Judge after taking into account the income potentiality of the husband and the status of the parties and all relevant factors applicable, can only be considered just and reasonable, and no interference with the quantification made is Crl.R.P.3389/04 - 4 - called for. 4. I have perused the records of the case giving due consideration to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides. The wife at the time of her marriage was hardly 19 years, and she was then studying for the plus two course. She had already two marriages before her marriage with the present husband. Both, needless to say, had ended in divorce. The husband, it has come out in evidence, had also a previous marriage. It is conceded that after the divorce of the wife, the claimant in the case, he has married again. Now the question arising for consideration is whether there is any illegality and impropriety in the quantification made by the learned Sessions Judge as regards the fair provision and reasonable maintenance and expenses for the Iddah period awarded to the wife. The husband banks upon Ext.D1 salary certificate produced by him to show that he has monthly earnings of only Rs.2175/- employed as H.S.A. in an unaided school. Ext.D1 certificate is dated 6.5.03. What is stated in the certificate is that he is drawing a sum of Rs.2175/- per month. His pay particulars are not stated in the certificate. As rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, implicit reliance on Ext.D1 certificate is not possible as it is only just and reasonable to hold that a H.S.A. would be getting much more amount than what is stated in Crl.R.P.3389/04 - 5 - Ext.D1 as his monthly emoluments. In fixing the quantum, regard must be had not only to the income potentiality of the husband, but the status of the parties and also their social background. The facts presented in the case would show that the wife at the time of marriage was a plus two student with prospects for better studies enabling her to attain a better future. Her husband too was employed as H.S.A. The learned Sessions Judge, after taking note of the cost of living, the needs and requirements of the wife for her livelihood and also the necessities of life, fixed a sum of Rs.750/- per month as the sum required for her future maintenance. The quantum arrived by the Sessions Judge would show that a meagre sum of Rs.25/- alone was provided for the daily needs of the wife. By no stretch of imagination, the sum of Rs.750/- per month fixed by the learned Sessions Judge towards the future maintenance of the wife can be termed as excessive. If at all, there was any grievance in the fixation of the amount, it could be only from the side of the wife since it need not be stated after the passing of the order, in the present day cost of living as of now, the sum of Rs.25/- per day provided to meet the daily requirements of wife has no value at all. A multiplier of 10 was adopted by the learned Sessions Judge and a quantum of Rs.90,000/- per annum was arrived as reasonable and fair provision to be Crl.R.P.3389/04 - 6 - provided to the wife. In this context, it has to be stated that the income of the husband might have doubled or tripled by this time after the passing of the impugned order. But the quantum fixed, however, remains static. The daily sum of Rs.25/- fixed at the time of the order to quantify the reasonable and fair provision, as already stated, has no relevance in the present day cost of living. It is only just and reasonable to hold that even at the time when the order was passed the husband employed as H.S.A. might have been getting not less than of Rs.5000/- as monthly emoluments. A sum of Rs.3000/- alone was provided towards expenses for the Iddah period. Needless to say, the sum fixed is very much on the lesser side. No interference with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge fixing the quantum towards fair and reasonable provision for maintenance and expenses to the wife for the Iddah period, is called for. The revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE