IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3723 of 2008() ------------------------------ MC.1/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): (PETITIONER) --------------------------------- P.UMAIMATH, D/O.K.K.AHAMMED, AGED 23, K.K.HOUSE, PALLICHAL, P.O.CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENT) --------------------------- AHAMMED KABEER MOULAVI, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 29, CHEMBON HOUSE, HOUSE NO.5/125M MADRASSA ROAD, P.O.TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CR.R.P.NO.3723 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 19th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the divorced wife of first respondent. She filed M.C.1/2007 before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur under Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 claiming maintenance for Iddat period and also fair and reasonable provision. According to revision petitioner, first respondent is doing real estate and is also earning as a vehicle broker and is having landed properties and he is running a stationery shop at Taliparamba and he is earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. She claimed Rs.12,000/- for maintenance for her Iddat period and Rs.4,00,000/- for fair and reasonable provision. She also claimed Rs.2,10,000/- for value of gold ornaments appropriated by first respondent. First respondent resisted the case contending that he is not having any landed property and is not doing stationery business and he is only a teacher in a CRRP 3723/08 2 Madrassa and his total monthly income is only Rs.1,000/- and he has other dependents to be maintained and therefore he is not liable to pay the amount as stated. It was also contended that he did not misappropriate gold ornaments of the revision petitioner as alleged. 2. Before the learned Magistrate revision petitioner was examined as PW1. First respondent was examined as RW1 and a witness was examined as RW2. Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of revision petitioner. On the evidence learned Magistrate found that revision petitioner is entitled to maintenance for Iddat period and also a fair and reasonable provision. Though revision petitioner contended that first respondent is having landed property, stationery business and real estate business as RW1, first respondent denied the case. Learned Magistrate found that there is no evidence to accept the oral testimony of revision petitioner when it was denied by first respondent, to hold that revision petitioner is having any other income except as a teacher of Madrassa. As against the case of revision petitioner that he is getting only Rs.1,000/- per month, learned Magistrate CRRP 3723/08 3 relying on the evidence of RW2 found that after all expenses first respondent is getting Rs.1,600/- per month. It is based on that evidence learned Magistrate directed revision petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month during the Iddat period. But finding that for the Iddat period revision petitioner had already received Rs.750/- per month learned Magistrate directed first respondent to pay Rs.250/- per month for the Iddat period. Assessing the monthly maintenance at Rs.1,000/- first respondent was directed to pay as reasonable and fair provision Rs.60,000/-. In the absence of any other evidence I find no reason to interfere with the quantum awarded by the Magistrate. Revision is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.