IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 204 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.141/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER:RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- CHEMMADAN ABDU SAMAD, S/O.ALIKUTTY, PADUPUNGAL HOUSE, CHERUKAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ POTTANPILAKKAL AMINA, D/O.MUHAMMED, POTTANPILAKKAL HOUSE, MUTHUVALLUR, THAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SAJU.S.A THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.22060/2005 IN RP(FC) NO.204/2005 DISMISSED 12/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.204 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.141/2005. It ,was an application filed by the wife for maintenance and the court directed the husband to pay at the rate of Rs.500/= per month. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. It is contended that since the lady has been divorced she is not entitled to claim maintenance and that considering the income of the husband, the amount awarded is high. The learned family court judge found that the wife moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights and it was allowed by the court and it has come out in evidence that the husband thereafter had never any discussion or mediation for divorce. The family court held that since separation should be with reasonable cause and it should be preceeded by mediation and as it has not been : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.204 OF 2005 complied with, even if talaq is pronounced, there will not be any valid divorce and therefore rejected the case of divorce. 3. In the light of the latest pronouncement by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan(AIR 2010 SC 305) “a cumulative reading of the relevant portions of judgments of this Court in Danial Latifi, (2001 AIR SCW 3932) (supra) and Iqbal Bano, (2007 AIR SCW 3880) (supra) would make it crystal clear that even a divorced Muslim woman would be entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband as long as she does not remarry. This being a beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue to the divorced Muslim women.” The court further considered that even if a Muslim woman is divorced, she will be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C after the expiry of period of iddat also, as long as she does not remarry. Even if the divorce is accepted as the lady has not remarried, it will not affect her entitlement to get maintenance. Therefore applying this dictum as well, the : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.204 OF 2005 wife is entitled to maintenance. 4. Lastly on the quantum. The family court has awarded extremely a reasonable amount of Rs.500/= as maintenance which cannot be held to be on the higher side. Therefore there is no illegality or impropriety which requires interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition fails and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.204 OF 2005