IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 918 of 2006() ----------------------------- CRRP.94/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR MC.6/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------------- FAROOQUE, S/O.AVOO, MALIYEKAL HOUSE, VADAKKEKADU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TAHIRA, D/O.VELLAPARAMBIL ALI MUSALIAR, PUNNAYOORKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR SRI.P.SANJAY FOR R1 SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 918 of 2006 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 06-08-2008 ORDER The revision petitioner was the counter petitioner in M.C. 6 of 1998 filed by the first respondent (divorced wife) under Sec. 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Ist respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as reasonable and fair maintenance, another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as mahar and still another sum of Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance during the iddat period of three months. 2. On the side of the first respondent/ applicant she examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked three documents as Exts.P1 to P3. On the side of the revision petitioner/quondam husband he examined his mother (who was holding his power- of-attorney) as C.P.W1 and Ext.D1 power-of-attorney deed was marked. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam, after trial, as per judgment dated 25-08-2000 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- by way of reasonable and fair provision of maintenance an Rs. 6,000/- as maintenance during the iddat period. The claim of Rs. 10,000/- by way of mahar was disallowed. Dissatisfied with the award the first respondent/ quondam wife filed Crl.R.P. 94 of 2000 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur which as per the impugned order dated 7-7- -:2:- 2003 enhanced the reasonable and fair provision for maintenance to Rs. 1,92,000/- as against 1,20,000/-. In all other respects the award of the trial court was upheld. Hence, this revision by the former husband. 4. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made the following submissions in support of the revision:- The court below have erred in awarding exorbitant amount towards the claim made by the first respondent. The revision petitioner had conveyed 33 cents of land as per Ext.P1 sale deed to the first respondent. This ought to have been reckoned towards the reasonable and fair maintenance awardable under Sec. 3(1) of the Act in view of the decisions reported in Aliyar v. Pathu -1988 (2) KLT 446 and Majitha Beevi v. Yakoob - 1999 (1) KLT 796 . 6. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent was on 17-4-1986. Two children have been born in that wedlock. The first respondent was divorced by triple talaq on 15-4-1995. The evidence in the case shows that the revision petitioner has been working in the Pepsi Company in Abu Dhabi receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/- and getting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of income from his -:3:- immovable assets. The first respondent is from an upper middle class family. At the time of marriage gold ornaments worth 50 sovereigns were given to her by her parents. Out of the above ornaments 32 sovereigns were utilised by the revision petitioner for giving away his sister in marriage. It was in lieu of the same that the revision petitioner conveyed 33 cents of land as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The courts below have taken into account the above fact while awarding the claims. The quantum of reasonable and fair maintenance as well as maintenance during the iddat period as awarded cannot be said to be excessive or on the higher side having regard to the strata to which the parties belong and the way of life which was led by the parties. This Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the conclusions reached by the court below after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. This Cl. R.P. is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 6 th day of August 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. -:4:-