IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 800 of 2004(D) --------------------------------------------- MC.70/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER. ------------------------------------------------------ AVUNJIPURAVAN SUBAIDA, D/O.MOIDEEN, NAYARUKANDI HOUSE, CHENGARA, ERIVETTI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.P.BABU KARTHIKEYAN. RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER. ----------------------------------------------------------- CHITHANAPPURAVAN VEERANKUTTY, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, VELLARA KALLINGAL HOUSE, AMAYOOR PO. KARAKUNNU. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.800 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioner, a divorced wife is before me in this revision. Respondent married petitioner on 20.3.1983 and after cohabiting for about 19 years divorced her on 10.4.2002. In the meantime four children also were born in the wedlock. It is conceded by both sides that one of the child is staying with the petitioner while three children are staying with the respondent. Consequent on the divorce on 10.4.2003 petitioner filed petition in the court below under Section 3 (1) of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (for short, “the Act”). She claimed Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance during the period of Iddath and Rs.2,00,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. Certain other claims were also made by the petitioner. Respondent contested the petition claiming that at the time of divorce he had paid Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner. He disputed various claims made by the petitioner and claimed that he is making his livelihood by selling plantain leaves and earning Rs.60/- per day. Petitioner examined herself as P.W.1. She proved Exts.P1 and P2. Exhibit P1 is copy of assignment deed No.4597 of SRO Manjeri. Exhibit P2 is certified copy of deposition of respondent in CRL. R.P. No.800 of 2004 -: 2 :- O.P.No.413 of 2002 filed by him for custody of the child who is staying with the petitioner. Respondent gave evidence as C.P.W.1. After consideration of the evidence court below fixed the expenses payable during the period of Iddat at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. Assessing the amount required for future maintenance of petitioner at the same rate Rs.76,800/- was awarded as fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance. Other claims were disallowed. Petitioner is now concerned with the expenses allowed during the period of Iddat and amount awarded for future maintenance. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that evidence on record shows that respondent had been employed abroad and is sufficiently affluent. Respondent would say that there is no plea or evidence as to the financial status of the petitioner. There is no evidence to show that respondent has means as claimed by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner when examined as P.W.1 stated about the ornaments and money she was given at the time of marriage. She also stated that her father had 6-7 acres of land. Of course she did not produce documentary evidence in proof of that. Respondent as C.P.W.1 denied that he had employment abroad. But it is seen from Ext.D2, copy of his deposition in O.P. No.413 of 2002 that he had admitted that he had been abroad and stayed there for two years. He CRL. R.P. No.800 of 2004 -: 3 :- claimed that it was on an Umra Visa. He then stated that on that Visa one could remain abroad only for three months. This coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 would show that respondent was working abroad. 3. So far as landed property allegedly belonging to respondent is concerned he started with a denial. He claimed that he had only 21 cents of land. Then he admitted that he had sold 10 cents of land. It was suggested to him that he got 1.48 acres of land but he denied that. Later he admitted that he has 1.48 acres which during 1997 or 1998, he mortgaged with the bank and got a loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. He claimed that as per the agreement with the bank he is obliged to repay that loan at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. Exhibit D1 is the copy of assignment deed No.4597/1998 in the name of respondent. That concerned with 1.48¾ acres of land in Sy.No.26. This fact he had to admit when confronted with Ext.D1. There is no evidence to show that respondent is reasonably well placed financially. If respondent is reasonably affluent, petitioner also in the normal course should have been placed in similar circumstances. Thus there is evidence to show that parties hail from reasonably affluent middle class family. Claim of petitioner has to be considered on that back drop. 4. What is awarded to the petitioner for expenses during the CRL. R.P. No.800 of 2004 -: 4 :- period of Iddat is at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. She was aged 40 years at that time. 'Maintenance' includes expenses for food, shelter, clothing, medicine and all other basic necessities. As a divorced wife petitioner is entitled to the same living standard she was enjoying before divorce. Considering these relevant factors and that petitioner was aged 40 years at the time she made the claim I am inclined to think that her monthly expenses can be fixed at Rs.1,000/-. If that be so petitioner is entitled to get Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.2,400/- awarded by the court below towards expenses during the period of Iddat. For the purpose of fixing the amount for reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance the same principle can be adopted. Court below awarded Rs.76,800/- at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. Evidently court below has taken 8 as the multiplier. Considering the age of the petitioner (40 years) I do not find reason to make any enhancement in the multiplier adopted by the court below. In fixing monthly expenses at the rate of Rs.1,000/- for deciding the quantum of future maintenance I also take into account the fact that as she was 40 years at the time of application and as a mother of four children there is no possibility of her getting re-married. It is conceded by counsel for respondent also that till now petitioner is not re-married. In the circumstances taking Rs.1,000/- as the monthly CRL. R.P. No.800 of 2004 -: 5 :- expenses the amount payable for future maintenance comes to Rs.96,000/- (1000x12x8). Thus petitioner is entitled to get Rs.96,000/- as against Rs.76,800/- awarded by the court below on that count. The order under challenge is modified as above stated. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the extent that the amount payable by the respondent to petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Act is modified as Rs.99,000/- (Rupees Ninety nine thousand only) as against Rs.79,200/- (Rupees Seventy nine thousand and two hundred only). THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv