V BAPPUTTY ALIAS MUHAMMED Vs. SHASHIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a wife who has got remarried and who has received reasonable and fair provision and maintenance from her former husband entitled to claim reasonable and fair provision and maintenance again under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') from the next husband who remarries and divorces her This is the question that is raised for consideration in this Crl. M.C.

(2.) On fundamental facts, there is no dispute. The marriage was the third marriage of the woman and the second marriage of the man. No children were born in the wedlock. Marriage took place on 30-6-96. Divorce took place on 6-6-1998. About the reasons of the divorce also, there is no serious disputes raised now. The husband was tested H.I.V. positive. The relatives of the wife in these circumstances got her away from the husband. She also later tested H.I.V. positive. There is, of course, a dispute attempted to be raised now as to whether the husband got it from the wife or the wife got it from the husband. Be that as it may, the wife after divorce claimed amounts under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The learned Magistrate on the evidence available came to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. 1,000/- x 3) as maintenance during the period of iddat and an amount of Rs. 35,000/ - as fair and reasonable provision. The Court of revision took the view that the wife is entitled only for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as fair and reasonable provision under Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly the revisional Court directed payment of an amount of Rs. 33,000/- to the divorced wife.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the wife, who had earlier married twice and who had obtained an amount of Rs, 30,000/- from the first husband and who had not claimed any amount from the second husband, is not entitled to claim any further amount from the third husband, i.e. the petitioner herein. This in short is the contention raised. Of course, a contention is further raised that the quantum awarded is excessive.