IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 851 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CRRP.28/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM MC.26/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANAZ, S/O. MOIDEN HAJI, AGED 35 YEARS, NANETH HOUSE, VALLOMKARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHEEBA, D/O. NAVOORKANI, VELLIKADAYIL VEEDU, RAMANMANGALAM KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.851 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011. ORDER Respondent in M.C.No.26 of 2000 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha challenges the order passed by that court under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam in Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2007. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 08.12.1996, and on 08.07.1998 he divorced her. Respondent No.1 claimed various amounts including `.10,000/- as expenses during the period of iddat and Rupees five lakhs as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. She alleged that petitioner has fifty cents and a house and another one acre of land. It is also her case that petitioner has a plywood mill at Perumbavoor and 25 cents of land at Muvattupuzha. She alleged that petitioner is earning `.30,000/- per month. Petitioner denied that he has landed properties and plywood mill as alleged. Petitioner claimed that he is only an employee in the plywood mill. Learned Magistrate awarded `.4,000/- as expenses during the period of iddat and `.1,50,000/- as reasonable and fair provision for maintenance while other claims made by respondent No.1 were rejected. That order though challenged by petitioner was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision. Petitioner has come to this Court challenging that order under Section 482 of the Crl.MC No.851/2010 2 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned counsel contended that there is no evidence to show that petitioner has any property or income as pleaded by respondent No.1 and even the evidence of respondent No.1 as PW1 is that she has no direct knowledge about the assets of petitioner stated in the claim petition. 2. It is true that when examined as PW1 respondent No.1 stated that she has not seen any document regarding property allegedly belonging to the petitioner. She stated that her information is what the petitioner had told her. I must bear in mind that respondent No.1 is the divorced wife of petitioner and that atleast for two years they lived together. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 is a B.Sc. B.Ed graduate. Apparently, it is difficult to think that she would be married to an employee in a plywood mill. It is reasonable to think that her parents would have found a husband suitable to her educational qualification. I must also consider the aged of the parties. Though age of respondent No.1 is not given in this proceeding, age of petitioner is given as 35 at the relevant time. Naturally respondent No.1 must have been aged less. What is awarded as expenses during the period of iddat is only `.4,000/- (for three months) which does not even came to `.50/- a day. The total amount awarded for reasonable and fair provision for maintenance is only `.1,50,000/- Amount has to be fixed having regard to the socio-economic back ground of parties. I stated that Crl.MC No.851/2010 3 respondent No.1 is a B.Sc. B.Ed. graduate. Having regard to the educational qualification I am inclined to think the socio-economic condition of petitioner will be similar to that of respondent No.1. Having regard to the evidence given by respondent No.1 and taking into account the cost of living, I do not find reason to interfere with the award for expenses during the period of iddat and reasonable and fair provision for maintenance under Section 482 of the Code . Petition fails. It is dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months' time from this day to deposit the amount in the trial court. Proceedings in execution if any shall stand in abeyance during the said period of two months. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks