P ABDURAHIMAN Vs. U K P KHADEEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the former husband of the respondent who filed M.C.No.168 of 2002 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"). Respondent made various claims of which, only two claims are allowed, maintenance during the period of iddat and reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. Hence it is not necessary to advert to other claims of the respondent. Respondent claimed Rs. .30,000/- during the period of iddat and Rupees five lakhs as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. Learned Magistrate found, rejecting the contentions of petitioner that he is liable to pay Rs. .4,500/- as maintenance during the period of iddat and Rs. .1,50,000/- as reasonable and fair provision. Learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.27 of 2004 filed by the petitioner has confirmed the said order. The said orders are under challenge at the instance of petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel that the amount awarded is exorbitant. According to the learned counsel, respondent did not make any claim against her first husband and hence she is estopped from making any claim against petitioner.

(2.) THIS being a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"), limited question is whether the order under challenge suffers from any illegality or the proceeding was an abuse of process of law. Even as per the version of petitioner, he is a painter by occupation and was aged 38 years at the time proceedings were initiated. Respondent was then aged 29 years. It is not disputed that it was second marriage of petitioner and respondent and that after pronouncement of thalak on respondent on 31.01.2002 with effect from 04.02.2002, petitioner has contracted a third marriage and is maintaining that lady. Necessarily I must think that he is capable of maintaining a family. He was aged 38 years and is able bodied. It is not shown that petitioner is incapable of earning due to physical infirmity. Hence it must be presumed that petitioner is capable of earning. Having regard to the need of a 29 year old lady such as food, clothing, shelters and other basic necessities, sum of Rs. .1,500/- per month (ie. at the rate of Rs. .50/- a day) awarded as maintenance during the period of iddat cannot be said to be exorbitant or, beyond the paying capacity of petitioner.

(3.) ON hearing learned counsel and on going through the orders under challenge I do not find reason to interfere. Resultantly this petition fails. It is dismissed.