ASHARAF Vs. JENNATHU BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Calling in question the legality, propriety and regularity of the order passed by the learned Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha in M.C. 19/1999 filed by the divorced wife of the revision petitioner (erstwhile husband) under S.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, (for short the Act) claiming Rs. 4 lakhs towards reasonable and fair provision, to be made Rs. 9,000/- towards maintenance to be paid to her during the period of Iddat and Rs. 40,000/- given to the former husband by her father at the time of marriage (under various heads the total amount claimed by the divorced wife from her former husband is Rs. 4,49,000/-) this revision has been filed.

(2.) Learned Magistrate, on an evaluation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their rival cases (erstwhile husband refuted all the allegations made against him by the divorced wife in the petition and contended that he is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the divorced wife in her application on the ground that she has obtained divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939), awarded Rs.60,000/- to the divorced wife as reasonable and fair provision for future livelihood (learned Magistrate arrived at that amount basing his conclusion that the monthly income of the husband is Rs. 3,000/- per month and towards reasonable and fair provision the divorced wife is to be given 1/3rd of his income for a period of five years). Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded by the learned Magistrate towards maintenance for the period of iddat.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner canvassing the correctness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate painstakingly highlighted the fact that the divorced wife had obtained divorce under the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 and the main thrust of the argument is that as the dissolution of marriage was brought about by the wife under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, the decree under the said Act did not amount to divorce by the husband, because marriage was dissolved by operation of law. Learned counsel submitted that a divorced wife is entitled to claim from her former husband reasonable and fair provision for future livelihood under S.3 of the Act only if the divorce proceeded from her erstwhile husband and the divorced wife is not entitled to claim fair and reasonable provision unless the divorce is given by the former husband unilaterally or is obtained by her from him. Learned counsel also questioned the sustainability of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the learned Magistrate had not taken into consideration while awarding Rs. 60,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision the needs of the divorced woman, the standard of life enjoyed by her during the subsistence of the marriage and the means of her former husband.