ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. HAIRUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the Respondent in M.C. No. 67/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Perinthalmanna, a petition filed by the 1st Respondent herein under Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act 25/86). The Petitioner married the 1st Respondent in 1980. Though the matrimony was blessed with four children, the Petitioner contracted a second marriage and started to ill-treat the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent moved O.P. No. 123/2003 before the Family Court, Manjeri seeking dissolution of the marriage under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1981 and obtained Ext.P1 order dated 16.3.2004, whereby the marriage was dissolved. Thereupon, the 1st Respondent moved the Trial Court, seeking an order directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of 18,000/- towards maintenance during iddat period and a sum of 7.5 lakhs as reasonable and fair provision with a pleading that the Petitioner was working abroad in Al-Alaim Defence Service since 8.2.1983 and that the 1st Respondent after obtaining her Masters Degree in Arts joined the Petitioner and was working in a school and that all the savings of the 1st Respondent were appropriated by the Petitioner and that the parties were living with all modern amenities and as on the date of the petition, the Petitioner was conducting a business by name Valluvanad Steels and was earning 50,000/- per month. In addition to that he owned a lorry from which he was getting 10,000/- per month. Apart from the business and the lorry, the Petitioner was having rubber plantations, coco gardens, pepper gardens etc., and thereby he had been getting an annual income of 5,00,000/-.

(2.) The Petitioner filed a counter statement, wherein the marital relationship was admitted and contending that as against Ext.P1 order, appeal as M.F.A. No. 82/2004 was pending and in the above circumstance, the 1st Respondent is not entitled to the relief sought in the petition. It was further contended that major portion of the income of the Petitioner was appropriated for the education of the children and there was no earning at all and that 30 cents of property and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments were purchased in the name of the 1st Respondent. It was further contended that the business Valluvanad Steels is a partnership and it is incorrect to say that the Petitioner had been getting a monthly income of 50,000/-. The income from the landed property was also denied and further contended that the 1st Respondent is not entitled to any maintenance during the iddat as she had not observed any iddat period and that she had been working as a teacher in an English medium school and had been getting income and that the 1st Respondent voluntarily obtained divorce and hence she is not entitled to either maintenance or any reasonable and fair provision under Section 3 of Act 25/86 and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) During the course of enquiry, the 1st Respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the Petitioner, he was examined as DW1. Another witness was examined as DW2. Exts.D 1 to D5 were marked. The Trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence on record, arrived at a finding that the 1st Respondent though obtained an order of divorce, she is entitled to get maintenance during the iddat period and also reasonable and fair provision. Taking into account of the materials disclosed in evidence, the trial court directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of 3200/- per month for three months. Towards reasonable and fair provision, the Petitioner was directed to pay 3,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till the date of payment. Assailing the said order, the Petitioner preferred Crl.R.P. No. 68/2005 before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. The Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad-hoc)-III to whom the revision was made over, by the impugned order dated 19.7.2007 allowed the revision petition in part whereby the order to pay maintenance was disallowed on arriving at a finding that the 1st Respondent had not observed iddat. As regards the reasonable and fair provision, the revisional court concurred with the trial court. But it was found that the 1st Respondent is not entitled to interest. Consequently, the Petitioner was directed to pay 3,84,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision. Assailing the said order, this petition was filed.