IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 511 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.37/2005 of Family Court, Kalpetta .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED @ UNNIYANKUTTY, S/O SEEKAN, KOORIKADAN HOUSE, PANAMARAM P.O., NEERATTADY. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.JALEEL SRI.K.THAVAMANY RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER --------------------------------------- KHADEEJA, D/O AHAMAD, EZHUPATHILKAD, PERIYA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PERIYA, MANANTHAVADY. ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ========================== R.P.(F.C) No. 511 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 17th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Kalpetta in M.C.No.37/2005. By the said order, the Family Court directed maintenance to be paid at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. It is challenging the same the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent would strongly contend before me that since the petitioner in the MC has been divorced in accordance with law under the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of rights on divorce) Act (25 of 1986), her right lies there to proceed with the remedy available in the said statute or in other words it is contended that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C will not come to the rescue of the divorced Muslim wife in R.P.(F.C) No. 511 of 2007 2 the light of Act 25 of 1986. Now the position is settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Shabana Bano V.Imran Khan, (AIR 2010 Supreme Court 305). The Hon'ble Judges had dealt with this matter in paras 29 and 30 of the judgment which are very relevant. It is extracted as follows: “para 29. Cumulative reading of the relevant portions of judgments of this Court in Danial Latifi,(2001 AIR SCW 3932) (supra) and Iqbal Bano,(2007 AIR SCW 3880) (supra) would make it crystal clear that even a divorced Muslim woman would be entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband, as long as she does not remarry. This being a beneficial peace of legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue to the divorced Muslim women. para 30. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and quashed. It is held that even if a Muslim women has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C after the expiry of period of iddat also, as long as she does not remarry.” In the light of this decision, the liability of the husband continues unless the wife gets remarried. So far as R.P.(F.C) No. 511 of 2007 3 quantum is concerned, it is only a meagre amount of Rs.500/- which cannot be interfered with. Therefore revision lacks merits and dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns