IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 917 of 2011() ------------------------ CRRP.27/2009 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC), MANJERI MC.112/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER, RESPONDENT: --------------- NELLIKKAL ALAVIKUTTY S/o. KUNHALAVI, PATTAR NADAKKAVU NEAR CHERULAL MADRASSA P O ANANTAVOOR BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER and STATE: --------------- 1. KUNNUMMAL KADEEJA, PUTHANATHANI PO PUNNATHALA, TIRUR TALUK-676 532 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV SRI KJ MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.917 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner married the respondent and later divorced her. These facts are not in dispute. Respondent made a claim under Sec.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act (for short, "the Act”) for return of gold ornaments, money and `.15,000/- as expenses during the period of Iddat and `.2,00,000/- as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. Respondent alleged that petitioner is earning `.10,000/- per month from his job and `.2,000/- from his landed properties. Petitioner denied the allegations and contended that he is a driver by occupation getting work only occasionally. Learned Magistrate while disallowing other claims made by the respondent found that she is entitled to get `.6,000/- as expenses during the period of Iddat and `.1,80,000/- as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. Learned counsel submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate was challenged only by the petitioner (Crl.R.P.No.27 of 2009). Learned Additional Sessions Judge was not inclined to interfere with the order of learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision. Hence this petition under Crl.M.C.No.917 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”). It is contended that amounts awarded are exorbitant and beyond paying capacity of petitioner. It is also contended that courts below did not take into account the fact that petitioner is only a driver by occupation and there is no evidence to show his income. Learned counsel submits that for non payment of the amount petitioner was arrested this day by the Kalpakancherry police to be produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur. 2. I have gone through the orders under challenge. Since there is no challenge on the side of respondent, it is not necessary to consider the claims made by her and rejected by the courts below. Now the question is whether the amount awarded as expenses during the period of Iddat and towards reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance are reasonable and within the paying capacity of petitioner. 3. It is true that payment towards reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance should depend upon the socio- economic conditions of the parties. Respondent was aged 43 years at the time of filing the petition (as the learned counsel submits). She alleged that petitioner is earning `.10,000/-from his profession and `.2,000/- from his landed property. True, there is no documentary evidence to prove that petitioner has landed Crl.M.C.No.917 of 2011 -: 3 :- property but petitioner did not dispute that he is a driver by profession. Though he claimed that he has various illness and he is not getting continuous work there is no evidence regarding alleged illness. It also came out in evidence that petitioner married atleast four times. Learned Magistrate was of the view that the said fact indicated that petitioner is able to maintain a family. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. 4. The amount awarded towards expenses during the period of Iddat is only `.6,000/-, at the rate of `.2,000/- per month. At the same rate, computing the amount payable for a period of 7½ years amount has been fixed towards reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. The sum of `.2,000/- per month would hardly come to `.65/- a day. That amount should cater to the requirements of respondent having regard to her needs such as food, clothing, shelter and all other reasonable amenities of life. I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded is excessive or beyond the capacity of petitioner. I do not find reason to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. 5. Learned counsel requested some time for payment of the amount. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has already paid `.50,000/- to the respondent. It is submitted that Crl.M.C.No.917 of 2011 -: 4 :- petitioner is not able to pay the entire amount in lump. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to grant some time. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of in the following lines: (i) The challenge to the orders passed by the courts below is rejected. (ii) Petitioner is granted time for deposit of the balance amount as stated hereunder. (iii) Petitioner shall be released on his executing bond for `.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate, Tirur undertaking to comply as under: (a) Petitioner shall produce the passport before the learned Magistrate and in case he does not own a passport, file an affidavit in that line before he is released on bail. (b) Petitioner shall deposit in the trial court for payment to respondent `.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) within two weeks from this day. (c) Petitioner shall deposit the entire balance amount within three months from this day for payment to the respondent. Crl.M.C.No.917 of 2011 -: 5 :- (e) Petitioner shall not go beyond the country until payment of the entire amount to the respondent. (f) Petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and when directed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge