NELLIKKAL ALAVIKUTTY Vs. KUNNUMMAL KADEEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER married the respondent and later divorced her. These facts are not in dispute. Respondent made a claim under Sec.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act (for short, "the Act") for return of gold ornaments, money and `.15,000/- as expenses during the period of Iddat and `.2,00,000/- as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. Respondent alleged that petitioner is earning `.10,000/- per month from his job and `.2,000/- from his landed properties. PETITIONER denied the allegations and contended that he is a driver by occupation getting work only occasionally. Learned Magistrate while disallowing other claims made by the respondent found that she is entitled to get `.6,000/- as expenses during the period of Iddat and `.1,80,000/- as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. Learned counsel submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate was challenged only by the petitioner (Crl.R.P.No.27 of 2009). Learned Additional Sessions Judge was not inclined to interfere with the order of learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision. Hence this petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). It is contended that amounts awarded are exorbitant and beyond paying capacity of petitioner. It is also contended that courts below did not take into account the fact that petitioner is only a driver by occupation and there is no evidence to show his income. Learned counsel submits that for non payment of the amount petitioner was arrested this day by the Kalpakancherry police to be produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur.

(2.) I have gone through the orders under challenge. Since there is no challenge on the side of respondent, it is not necessary to consider the claims made by her and rejected by the courts below. Now the question is whether the amount awarded as expenses during the period of Iddat and towards reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance are reasonable and within the paying capacity of petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel requested some time for payment of the amount. LEARNED counsel submitted that petitioner has already paid `.50,000/- to the respondent. It is submitted that petitioner is not able to pay the entire amount in lump. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to grant some time. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of in the following lines: