IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 83 of 2008() --------------------- MC.344/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER : -------------------------- SAHEER, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KUNHALI HAJI, KUTTIYALI KADAVATHU, KUTTAI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/STATE ------------------------------- 1. SALEENA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.MAMMASSAN @ KUNHIMON, KOTTATHARAMAYINKANAKATHU THALAKKAD AMSOM P.O., BP ANGADI, TIRUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 83 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner in this RPFC assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem from the date of the M.C. The impugned order is a common order. The wife had filed an application for divorce also under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. That OP was allowed and the marriage stands dissolved from the date of the order. After having granted divorce, the learned Judge of the Family Court had granted maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, from the date of the petition. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, having granted divorce the petitioner cannot thereafter have any liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. His liability is limited to payment of maintenance during the period of Iddat etc., under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. In these circumstances, the impugned order may not be executed against him even after the date of divorce. It may be clarified that the liability of the petitioner to pay R.P.(FC) No. 83 OF 2008 2 maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is only till the date of the divorce and thereafter the rights, if any, will have to be worked out in proceedings under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. 3. The respondent has entered appearance. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has no intention of claiming any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C on the strength of the impugned order for a period beyond the date of divorce, i.e., the date of the impugned order, i.e., 16.11.07. Respondent/claimant had already initiated steps under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act to claim the amounts payable under that Act consequent to the divorce ordered by the impugned order. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties. It is clarified that after the date of divorce, the claimant wife does not want to and cannot claim any amounts on the strength of the impugned order. 4. With that clarification, this RPFC is dismissed as agreed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb R.P.(FC) No. 83 OF 2008 3 R.P.(FC) No. 83 OF 2008 4 R.P.(FC) No. 83 OF 2008 5