ABDUL HAMEED Vs. FOUSIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod dated 21.3.2003 in M.C.No.39 of 2001 is challenged by the respondent, former husband. The petitioner was the divorced wife. She had filed an application under S.3(l)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (Act 25 of 1986) (hereinafter referred as the Act). The Court held that the wife was to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- for the three months duration of iddat observed by her and Rs.90,000/- father inlaw plus the value of gold ornaments, kept back valued at Rs. 2,25,000/- (75 sovereigns).

(2.) The petitioner herein challenges the findings as above, both regarding the maintenance as awarded as also the fair provisions allowed, as envisaged by S.3 of the Act. Dispute was there about the mahr amount as also the value of the gift and properties which had been alleged as appropriated after the marriage.

(3.) As referred to earlier, there is no dispute about the fact that there was divorce. It had been brought by a decree of the Civil Court on 29.2.2000 and the claim of an earlier settlement including divorce, pleaded by the husband cannot be now taken cognizance of. It could also be taken notice of that at least as on 17.6.2000, the wife had remarried as a notice sent to her in her present husband's house address, had been accepted by her. In her evidence also she had admitted of the marriage. Although the petitioner herein has a case that the remarriage had taken place some time in 1997 itself, so long as a binding decree has been passed, granting a divorce as on 29.2.2000, we cannot go behind such a factual finding. There is no case projected by the petitioner herein that his former wife had remarried after the date of decree, within a period of three months, when she was to observe iddat, since he had only relied on a circumstance that the marriage was as early as in 1997. Therefore, we have to go by the plea of the wife that she had observed iddat after the decree as required by the custom, and as referred to in the Act. The question however is whether the remarriage which had taken place at least as on 17.6.2000 would have altered the position to the advantage of the former husband and was to be an input while the fair provisions were adjudged.