IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 630 of 2011() --------------------------------- CRRP.25/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI. MC.3/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- KUTTIPPURVAN MOHAMMED,S/O.VEERAN, PARAMMAL HOUSE,CHEMMRAKKATTOOR PO,AREACODE, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AYISHA, D/O.VEERAN,PARAMMAL HOUSE,CHEMMRAKKATTOOR PO, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NASI MOL,D/O.SAIDALAVI,KARATT HOUSE, NEDIYIRUPPU,KONDOTTY PO, 673 638,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN- 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.630 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Counter petitioner in M.C. No.3 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram and petitioner in Crl. R.P. No.20 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Manjeri is the petitioner before me challenging order passed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (for short, “the Act”). It is not disputed that petitioner married the first respondent on 24.05.1999 and later that marriage was dissolved as per order of Family Court, Malappuram in O.P. No.552 of 2007. Respondent No.1 along with various other claims made a claim for Rs.9,000/- as expenses during the period of Iddat and Rs.10,00,000/- towards fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance. Petitioner contested the proceeding through his Power of Attorney Holder and sister and denied various allegations. He claimed that he is working abroad and getting only a meagre income. In the trial court respondent No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1 and proved Exts.P1 and P2. Power of Attorney Holder of petitioner was examined as CRL.M.C. No.630 of 2011 -: 2 :- R.W1 and Exts.R1 and R2 were marked. Learned Magistrate while disallowing other claims made by the first respondent granted Rs.9,000/- as expenses during the period of Iddat and Rs.2,70,000/- as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance taking into account expense of respondents as Rs.3,000/- per month and calculating the amount for a period of 90 months. Both sides were aggrieved. Petitioner filed Crl. R.P. No.20 of 2010 while first respondent filed Crl. R.P. No.25 of 2010 aggrieved by the rejection of the other claims. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed both the revisions by the impugned order. Petitioner is aggrieved by what he called excessiveness of the amount awarded as expenses during the period of Iddat and the amount awarded as fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance. Learned counsel contended that the amount awarded is excessive and without any evidence whatsoever. It is also contended that normally the multiplier that will be taken into account is only 5 while in this case it is taken as 7½. 2. I have gone through the orders under challenge. It is true that the amount awarded under Sec.3 of the Act must be in CRL.M.C. No.630 of 2011 -: 3 :- accordance with the socio-economic conditions of the parties. It is not disputed that petitioner was working abroad during the relevant time but he did not state what exactly is his job abroad and income. It has come in evidence that during the time learned Magistrate conducted enquiry, petitioner was very much available at his native place but he did not enter the witness box. When the nature of the employment and income he gets are matters within his knowledge, particularly as he is abroad it was incumbent on petitioner to produce appropriate evidence regarding his employment and income which he has not done for reasons known to him. I must bear in mind that it is not a case where on account of his being abroad he was not able to give evidence. He was very much available at his native place but he has shunted the witness box. It is in the above circumstances that learned Magistrate has drawn an inference that petitioner is getting reasonable income from his employment. I do not find reason to interfere with the inference drawn by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. Respondent No.1 was aged about 26 years at the CRL.M.C. No.630 of 2011 -: 4 :- relevant time. Having regard to her age, needs and cost of living as also the escalation in cost of prices I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded as expense during period of Iddat which comes only to Rs.100/- per day is in any way exorbitant calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 4. What remained is whether the amount awarded as fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance is excessive. It is seen that Rs.3,000/- (which was taken as the amount payable towards expenses during the period of Iddat per month) was taken by the learned Magistrate as the basis for awarding that amount. It has been taken for a period of 90 months. Learned counsel did not point out any rule or authority which states that the maximum multiplier that could be taken is only 5. That depended on the age of the parties. I stated that the first respondent was aged 26 years at the relevant time. Having regard to that fact period of 90 months (7½ years) taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be excessive calling for interference. On going through the orders under challenge and hearing learned counsel I do not find reason to interfere with the CRL.M.C. No.630 of 2011 -: 5 :- impugned orders at the instance of petitioner. Criminal Miscellaneous Case fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv