CHAND MUHAMMED Vs. ZEENATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges An-nexure B common order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl. R. P. Nos. 34 and 46 of 2010. The first respondent herein filed a petition under Sec. 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') before J. F. C. M. , Alathur claiming maintenance during iddat period, fair and reasonable provision and also for the value of gold ornaments worth 25 sovereigns and another sum of Rs. 60,000/- which was stated to have been paid to the petitioner herein earlier. That petition was resisted by the petitioner herein raising various grounds. The learned Magistrate allowed that petition and ordered that Rs. 12,000/- shall be paid as maintenance for the iddat period of three months and Rs. 70,000/- be paid as reasonable and fair provision. It was also directed that the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 15-9-2008 till the date of payment. He was given two months time to pay the said amount. The claim for the value of gold ornaments and for return of Rs. 60,000/- was disallowed. The divorced wife filed a revision petition against the rejection of her claim for the value of gold ornaments and for return of Rs. 60,000/- mentioned above. The petitioner herein filed a revision petition challenging the order directing payment of Rs. 12,000/- as maintenance for the iddat period and Rs. 70,000/- as fair and reasonable provision.

(2.) As per Annexure B common order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the divorced wife but allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein in part, reducing the amount of maintenance for the iddat period to Rs. 6,000/- as against Rs. 12,000/- which was awarded by the learned Magistrate. But the order for payment of Rs. 70,000/- as fair and reasonable provision was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The petitioner herein contends that since the first respondent herein had stated that she had not accepted the talak, the petition filed by her was not maintainable. It was also contended that she had not observed any iddat. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision in the Act to order separate maintenance for the iddat period and that the Courts below should have found that the amount payable as 'fair and reasonable provision' would cover the amount for the iddat period and hence no separate amount should have been ordered for the iddat period. It is also contended that there is no evidence to show that the first respondent has observed iddat. The other ground that has been put forward by the petitioner is that the Court below went wrong in awarding interest for the amount ordered as maintenance and fair provision.