IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2007 / 6TH ASHADHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 36 of 2000() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC. NO.343/98 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE. .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT ------------------ T.MALATHI, PROPRIETRIX, CAPRICORN FINANCE CORPORATION, Y.M.C.A. CROSS ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED ----------------------- P.V.VIJAYAN, PULLADI VEEDU , ATHIRUVANNUR, CALICUT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.DILIP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.R. UDAYABHANU, J. CRL.R.P.NO.578 of 2000 DATED THIS THE 13th JUNE 2007 ORDER The revision petitioner, who is the petitioner in M.C.No.46/1995 filed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act had claimed altogether a sum of Rs. 7,01,500/- that included the value of the ornaments, cash and household articles misappropriated by the respondent, erstwhile husband, and Rs.9,000/- towards mahar, Rs.9,000/- towards maintenance for the iddat period and Rs. 2,00,000/- being reasonable and fair provision. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that herself and her four children including three daughters were sent back to her parental home on 10-8-1995 on account of the ill-will on the part of the respondent as she did not join in the particular Muslim association in which the respondent is a member. She has also alleged that she was manhandled. 3. On the other hand, the respondent has filed counter statement denying the alleged misappropriation and the contention that she was provided with 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- cash at the time of marriage etc. According to him, she CRL.R.P.578/2000 -2- is an active member of a religious organization headed by one Advocate Seethi and it is at his instance that she has left him and instituted the proceedings. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, the petitioner, PW2, her father, and Exts.P1 to P3 and CW1, the respondent. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced in the matter ordered the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,800/- towards the value of ornaments, household articles and cash; Rs.9,000/- towards mahar; Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance during the iddat period and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision; altogether a sum of Rs.2,64,800/-. The revision filed by the respondent was allowed and the amounts ordered towards value of ornaments, household articles etc. as well as the amount ordered to be paid towards mahar was disallowed. The Sessions Judge ordered to pay maintenance during the iddat period at Rs.1,500/- and the amount by way of fair and reasonable provision at Rs.30,000/- calculating the income of the respondent at Rs.1,500/- per mensum. 5. On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the matter and the findings of the courts below, I find that the Sessions Judge has rightly reversed the findings of the trial court with respect to the value of properties and the amount ordered to be paid as Mahar as evidence CRL.R.P.578/2000 -3- in this regard consisted of only the oral testimony of PW1, the petitioner and PW2 her father. CPW1 had testified denying the allegations of Pws.1 and 2. There was absolutely no objective evidence as to the payment of jewellery, cash and household articles. It is also to be noted that the marriage had taken place 22 years prior to the date of divorce. Hence, I find no reason to interfere in the findings of the Sessions Judge with respect to the value of the properties and mahar disallowed. 6. It is admitted by CPW1 that he has remarried subsequent to divorce. It is also evident that the children are with the petitioner. According to Pws.1 and 2, the respondent belongs to a rich family and he is running a hotel and has got properties. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P3, the title deed with respect to 20 cents of property in his name at Kizhissery Town. It is the case of the respondent that he has sold the above property to settle his debts. The above sale deed was not produced. According to the petitioner, the above property would fetch a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. According to CPW1, he is working as an employee in a hotel. I find that except the deposition of CPW1, he has not attempted to produce any objective evidence as to his income and the assets that he owned. Evidently, he should have been able to produce evidence as to his employment and as to the CRL.R.P.578/2000 -4- value that he received on selling the property etc. In the circumstances, I find that the amount of Rs.1500/- taken as monthly income of the respondent appears to be too low. Hence, I find that a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month can be taken as his monthly income and 1/3rd of the same, i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month taken as the amount to be paid as maintenance during the iddat period. The same would work out to Rs.3,000/-. Towards reasonable and fair provision also calculating at the above rate the amount would work out to Rs.60,000/-. Hence, the revision petition is allowed in part directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance during the iddat period and Rs.60,000/- (1000 x 12 x 5) as reasonable and fair provision towards future maintenance. Hence, the respondent is directed to pay altogether a sum of Rs.63,000/-. Sd/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE CRL.R.P.578/2000 -5- ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 3226 OF 2000 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 578/2000 DISMISSED. 13-6-2007 SD/-K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE CRL.R.P.578/2000 -6- K.R.UDAYABHANU, J CRL.R.P.NO.578 of 2000 ORDER 13-6-2007