IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 241 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.359/2007 of the FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- HASEENA.U., AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED, ULLATTIL HOUSE, NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN, ADVOCATE MR.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------- HUSSAIN KOYA, S/O.ALI, CHEKRAYIN VALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE. BY MR.R.SUDHISH, ADVOCATE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. ========================= R.P.(F.C).No.241 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the petitioner in M.C.No.359/2007 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode. The petition was filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 7 of the Family Court Act. By the impugned order dated 25.03.2008, the petition was dismissed with the following order: “Marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been dissolved as per the order in O.P.933/2007. Hence, the petitioner should apply for getting maintenance u/s. 3 of Muslim Woman Protection Act. Hence this petition dismissed”. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the marriage was dissolved by the order in O.P.No.933/2007 dated 25.03.2008 and that the right to make claim under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act would arise only from that date and that the lower court failed to note that the petitioner is entitled to claim maintenance till that date. The submission merits R.P.(F.C).No.241/2008 2 consideration. No reason is shown in the impugned order for not allowing maintenance to the revision petitioner till the date of divorce. The lower court also failed to note that the parties had a right of option under Section 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. In this view of the matter, I find that the order impugned is erroneous and is not sustainable. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. While setting aside the order impugned, the matter is remitted back to the lower court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 25.01.2010. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. dvs