MOHAMED IBRAHIM Vs. RAMZAN BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMZAN Begam, the respondent, herein, filed an application under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986 (Act XXV of 1986) in M.C. 13 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Tirunelveli against her husband Mohamed Ibrahim, the petitioner herein praying for a fair and reasonable provision towards the maintenance during the period of iddat and return of the mahr amount quantified in a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - restoration of jewels given to her valued at Rs. 33,000/ - repayment of the amount of Rs. 20,000/ - restoration of the utensils and articles valued at Rs. 10.000/ -all given at the time of her marriage and for Rs. 50.000/ -towards the future maintenance, as a consequence of pronouncement of talaq.

(2.) THE petitioner -husband admitting the factum of marriage and subsequent pronouncement of talaq by him and having the custody of the minor son, would however dispute the claims of his wife as respects the mahr and other properties to be given to her, as a consequence of divorce.

(3.) LEARNED Judicial Magistrate, taking into consideration the hues of the wife and (he respective financial status and standard of living of the' parties, fixed the maintenance during the period of iddat, namely, three months, at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per mensem, amounting to Rs. 1,500/ - and made an award for the payment of Rs. I,000/ - alter milking a deduction of Rs. 500/ - already paid. He also recorded a finding that the wife is not entitled to the mahr amount of Rs. 20,000/ -as claimed and if at all the husband is liable to pay the mahr amount quantified in a sum of Rs. 20l/ - and the same had also been paid. He further recorded a finding that as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act, she is not entitled to any provision towards the future maintenance and therefore, rejected her claim for future maintenance in a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. He would however record a finding that the husband is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 53,000/ - to his wife towards the value of the jewels, household utensils and cash paid during the time of marriage. The husband, aggrieved by the said order, came forward with the present action. Notice of motion has been ordered by this Court returnable by three weeks, on 25 -3 -1992.