IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 75 of 2007() ---------------------------- MC.28/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER:PETITIONER IN MC: -------------------------------------------------- M. KUNHIBEEVI, D/O.MAMMYKUTTY, NELLERI HOUSE, OVUNGAL, P.O.THALAKADATHUR, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT IN MC: ------------------------------------------------------- P.P. SAIDALAVI, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KAVAPURA, PALAKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.PONMUDAN, TIRUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.75 OF 2007 =========================== Dated this the 23rd day of September,2008 ORDER Petitioner is the divorced wife of the respondent. She filed a petition under section 3 (1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act contending that respondent married her on 3.5.1992 and two children were born in that wedlock and after three years of the marriage respondent went abroad and on 16.8.2002, he sent a letter pronouncing thalakk and respondent did not pay the maintenance during the Iddat period or made any reasonable provision for future maintenance of the wife and therefore she is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- towards maintenance during the Iddat period and Rs.1,50,000/- towards fair and reasonable provision towards future maintenance. She has also claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards the value of gold ornaments allegedly taken by respondent. Respondent resisted the petition CRRP 75/2007 2 contending that there was mediation and as per the mediation an agreement was entered into fixing the fair and reasonable provision at Rs.30,000/- and respondent is not liable to pay any amount. 2. Learned Magistrate on the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3, RW1 and RW2 and Exts.P1 to P3 found that there is no evidence to prove that gold ornaments of the petitioner was taken and utilised by the respondent and therefore she is not entitled to any amount under that head. Rejecting the case of the respondent that he had paid the amount as agreed to under a mediation, it was found that fair and reasonable provision for the maintenance was not paid. Learned Magistrate fixing maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month, directed the first respondent to pay Rs.1800/- as maintenance during the iddat period and also directed to pay Rs.36,000/- assessed as the maintenance for a period of 5 years at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. That order is challenged in this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner CRRP 75/2007 3 was heard. 4. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is challenged not on the ground that maintenance fixed by the court is not a fair and reasonable provision for the future maintenance of the petitioner or a proper maintenance for the Iddat period, but on the ground that maintenance awarded is insufficient to maintain the two children and respondent has sufficient source of income to pay maintenance for the children. In a petition filed under section 3(1) of the Act, the claim of maintenance of the children is not to be decided. Inspite of the provisions under the Muslim Women (P.R.D.) Act, children are entitled to claim maintenance as provided under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (P.R.D) Act on the ground that the amount awarded is insufficient for the maintenance of the children. CRRP 75/2007 4 5. Though it is contended that fair and reasonable provision is too low, on going through the judgment, I do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum as it is reasonable and proper. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006