IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1723 of 2002(B) ------------------------------ CRRP.95/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE MC.52/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,KOYILANDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER : --------------------------------------------------- SAFIA, UMMATHUMPURATH HOUSE, KUNNATHARA, KANNUR, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER RESPONDENTS/REVN.PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER : --------------------------------------------------------- K.M.HAMSA, VALIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, KUNNATHARA, KANNUR, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1723 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April 2008 ORDER Petitioner had obtained an order in her favour under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had directed the respondent herein to pay Rs.10,000/- being the amount paid to the petitioner by the parents at the time of her marriage, Rs.35,000/- being the value of ten sovereigns of gold and Rs.80,000/- as fair and reasonable provision and maintenance. 2. The above order was challenged by the respondents before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The learned Sessions Judge disallowed the claims under the first two heads referred to above. As regards the claim for fair and reasonable provision the amount was reduced to Rs.56,000/-. But in the course of the discussion on that point, the learned Sessions Judge had observed thus: “The amount claimed by the petitioner was Crl.R.P.No.1723 OF 2002 :: 2 :: Rs.1,92,000/- on the basis that she was entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month for a period of 40 years. Claim of Rs.400/- per month is quite reasonable. PW1 was 28 years when she was examined before the lower court. So I find that maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month for a period of 20 years will be just and reasonable as the fair and reasonable provision for the future maintenance of the petitioner.” 3. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel, the figure arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is apparently incorrect. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get the order corrected appropriately. 4. Petitioner has not been able to serve notice on the respondent so far. The notice sent to him has been returned stating 'gone in search of job'. Learned counsel submits that to his knowledge petitioner is away in the Middle East in connection with his employment. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the petitioner has to move the Sessions court to get the apparent error corrected. It will be open to the petitioner to take out notice to Crl.R.P.No.1723 OF 2002 :: 3 :: the respondent from the Sessions court by affixture or such other appropriate mode. The Sessions court shall pass appropriate orders on the application if any that may be moved for correction. Revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes