IBRAHIM KUTTY Vs. JAMEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions are filed against a common order dated 18.7.2006 in Crl.R.P. No. 42/2004 and 56/2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Manjeri. The petitioner, Ibrahimkutty, in Crl.R.P. No. 974/2007 and Crl.M.C. No. 566/2007 is the former husband of the 1st respondent, Jameela, who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 3222/2006. The 1st respondent therein is the petitioner in the other two petitions. Bone of contention is the amount payable under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act to Jameela on her divorce. The brief facts leading to the petitions are that Jameela was married by Ibrahimkutty on 2.12.1984 and was divorced on 21.5.2001. Ibrahimkutty was employed abroad and he married Jameela after divorcing his first wife. Jameela would contend that at the time of marriage the mehar fixed was 6= sovereigns of gold. Ibrahimkutty had taken away 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and a sum of rupees one lakh given to Jameela at the time of marriage. At the time when Jameela was divorced, Ibrahimkutty didn't pay the deferred mehar. Gold ornaments and rupees one lakh given by her father were also not given back. No amount was paid for her maintenance during iddath period or any amount towards the reasonable and fair provision. With that plea, Jameela filed M.C. No. 102/2002 before the Munsiff -Magistrate, Ponnani. In total, she had claimed a sum of rupees eight lakhs.

(2.) THE trial court, after due enquiry, rejected the claim for value of the mehar and gold ornaments. But awarded a sum of rupees nine thousand towards maintenance during iddath period and a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/ - as reasonable and fair provision. The quantum was determined on calculation that Rs. 3,000/ - would be a reasonable amount for the maintenance of Jameela.

(3.) ASSAILING the order allowing Crl.R.P. No. 42/2004, Ibrahimkutty filed Crl.R.P. No. 974/2007. Crl.M.C. No. 566/2007 was also filed by Ibrahimkutty, assailing the order dismissing Crl.R.P. No. 56/2004. Assailing the common order to the extent to which R.P. No. 42/2004 was disallowed, Jameela had preferred Crl.M.C. No. 3222/2006.