FATHIMA Vs. FAZIL V. KHADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in these Crl.M.Cs is against the order passed under Sec. 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, Muslim Women Protection Act).

(2.) One Fathima Suhara (hereinafter referred to as Rs.wife') was married to Fazil V. Khader (hereinafter referred to as Rs.husband') on 11/01/2009. A child was born out of wedlock. But their marriage did not last long. The husband divorced the wife by pronouncing talaq on 25/5/2012. After the divorce, the wife preferred MC No.236/2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani (for short, the trial court) under Sec. 3 of the Muslim Women Protection Act claiming Rs.25,00,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision for the future maintenance, Rs.1,20,000/- towards maintenance during iddat period and Rs.1,42,560/- being the value of the mehar. The husband resisted the claim, mainly contending that as per Ext.D2 agreement executed between him and the wife, he had discharged his obligation under Sec. 3 of the Muslim Women Protection Act by paying a consolidated amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the maintenance during the iddat period and also towards the fair provision for future maintenance. So far as the claim of the mehar was concerned, it was contended that it was paid at the time of marriage itself and hence the wife was not entitled to claim the same.

(3.) The parties went on trial. After a full-fledged trial, the trial court granted a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- with interest to the wife as the fair provision for future maintenance and Rs.75,000/- towards the maintenance during the iddat period. The claim for mehar was disallowed. The contention of the husband that he had discharged his obligation under Sec. 3 of the Muslim Women Protection Act based on Ext.D2 was found against him. The fair provision for future maintenance was fixed as Rs.18,00,000/-, reckoning the husband's income as 10,000 dirhams per month. The husband challenged the order of the trial court in revision before this court as Crl. R.P.No.1554/2014. This court found that Ext.D2 is a settlement agreement of the fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance and other claims of the wife, and hence the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- paid in terms of Ext.D2 has to be set off against the fair provision for future maintenance entitled by the wife. As far as the quantum of future maintenance fixed by the trial court, it was found that the amount so fixed, calculating the monthly income of the husband at the rate of 10,000 dirhams, was wrong since, as per Ext.P5 work contract of the husband, his income was only 4,000 dirhams per month. After remand, the trial court fixed Rs.8,40,000/- as the reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance and Rs.45,000/- as the maintenance during the iddat period. The said order of the trial court was challenged by both husband and wife before the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri (for short, the Sessions Court) in Crl. Revision Petition Nos. 22/2017 and 12/2018. The Sessions Court dismissed the revision filed by the husband and allowed in part the revision filed by the wife, enhancing fair provision of future maintenance to Rs.9,60,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance ordered, the wife filed Crl. M.C. No.1286/2020, and the husband filed Crl.M.C.No.4796/2025.