SAJEENA Vs. SHIBU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against on order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class-II, Kottarakara in M.C.No.68/2005. The petitioner/divorced wife filed a petition under Sec. 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) claiming maintenance from the counter petitioner during the period of iddat and claiming reasonable and fair provision for future life, value of gold ornaments, return of parental share paid at the time of marriage and also house hold articles. The respondent remained ex-parte. PW1 alone was examined. On the basis of her evidence, the learned Magistrate directed payment of Rs.1,000.00 per month for three months, Rs.60,000.00 in lumpsum towards reasonable and fair provision and Rs.10,000.00 allegedly paid as 'acharam' (parental share) and Rs.1,000.00 as costs.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this revision petition inter alia contending that the Family Court completely erred in fixing reasonable and fair provision at Rs.60,000.00. That apart, despite the fact that the respondent was ex-parte, the Family Court should have directed return of gold ornaments and also the amount paid as her parental share and value of house hold articles.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioner had claimed Rs.1,500.00 per month for which Rs.1,000.00 has already been granted. That apart, the Family Court has already taken into consideration the reasonable and fair provision as five years' maintenance and a decree has been granted to that extend. As far as other claims are concerned, there is no evidence to prove the same and therefore the Family Court was justified in rejecting the said claim.