C K ABOOBACKER Vs. RAHIYANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the impact (limited impact as explained by the Division Bench in Abdul Hameed v. Fousiya,2004 3 KLT 1049 of a post iddat remarriage on the claim of a divorced wife for fair and reasonable provision and maintenance under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short the Act ) Should a post Iddat remarriage during the pendency of the claim under Section 3 of the Act influence the Magistrate while quantifying the amount due Should remarriage pending revision or post revision persuade the superior courts to make appropriate modification of the amount quantified earlier by the Magistrate Are the rights of a divorced Muslim woman under Section 3 of the Act larger and supplemental to the rights under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Cannot the amount due under Section 3 of the Act in a case of remarriage exceed the arithmetical equivalent of maintenance which would have been payable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. between the date of divorce and the date of remarriage What principles must be followed by the courts while quantifying the fair and reasonable provision and maintenance to be made and paid during the period of Iddat under Section 3(1)(a)of the Act when there is a post Iddat remarriage pending proceeding These thoughts come up for consideration in this case on the basis of the arguments advanced.

(2.) To the vitally, relevant and crucial facts first. The parties shall be referred to as the claimant/wife and the respondent/husband for the sake of easy reference. The marriage took place when the claimant was in her teens on 3/5/85. She was only 19 years old then. She was a student. The couple lived happily for about 16 years. She continued her education. She was taken to the place of employment of the husband abroad. They returned. The only snag was that no child was born in the matrimony. The wife secured employment. They pooled their income and lived happily. Properties were purchased during matrimony in the name of the husband. A house was built in the property of the husband. Withdrawals were made during the currency of matrimony from the Provident Fund account of the wife. Both of them did the Haj Pilgrimage together. It would appear that both of them were treated for infertility. The wife had conceived one; but the pregnancy did not advance and it was a case of tubular pregnancy. Later, she did not conceive.

(3.) After about 16 years of such harmonious matrimony, the husband admittedly made a suggestion to the wife that he may be permitted to remarry. She reckoned this as a betrayal of the investment made by her in matrimony in terms of emotions, sentiments, trust, faith and property. Nay she had invested her whole life ip the cause of the matrimony. She did not agree to such remarriage. The divorce was effected ultimately on 03/4/01 by unilateral pronouncement of Talak on the sole ground that the claimant/wife did not agree for the second marriage. The husband immediately thereafter on 21/4/01 married another school teacher. The claimant/wife herself is a High School teacher.