SOUDA K.V. Vs. ABBAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to recover the huge amount of medical expenses incurred by her, from her former husband, who has the ability to meet such a claim, is the main question to be decided here. MC No. 12 of 2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -V Kozhikode was filed under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by a divorced Muslim woman seeking reasonable and fair provision and maintenance, maintenance during the period of Iddat, value of her gold ornaments etc., under Section 3(1) of the Act.

(2.) THIS is a case wherein the counter -petitioner in the above said cases had pronounced talaq on the petitioner allegedly on account of his ill will towards her. Even though in the counter, there was no specific contention from the part of the counter -petitioner that such an extra judicial divorce was effected on account of her alleged adulterous life with the brother of the counter -petitioner, in the evidence he has gone to the extent of saying that he had witnessed the adulterous life of the petitioner with his own brother at his house, on five occasions. According to him, on all those occasions the three children were also present in the very same room. On going through the evidence and the allegations made by the counter -petitioner in the evidence, it seems that the said allegations are, prima facie, not believable. He has admitted that in the counter he has not mentioned specifically the adulterous life of the petitioner.

(3.) BOTH the parties have challenged the said order before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge has found that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 9,000/ - by way of maintenance for the period of Iddat, at the rate of Rs. 3000/ - per month, and similarly she is entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/ - by way of reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for the future period. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the claim for an amount of Rs. 45,000/ -, which was ordered by the Trial Court and therefore, it was held that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the said amount of Rs. 45,000/ -.