Back
KERALA HIGH COURT
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
Abdul Shukkur K.M. – Petitioner
versus
K.P. Raashida and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.MC No.4336 of 2021
Decided on 11.9.2025
(A) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Section 3 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482/[Section 528 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Award of maintenance to divorced Muslim wife – Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had properly appreciated all relevant facts and circumstances – Her age and possibility of securing second marriage have been properly weighed by Chief Judicial Magistrate – Quantum of maintenance to be fixed should be adequate to enable wife to live with dignity, similar to standard with which she would have lived in her matrimonial home – Plea of financial constraints could not be taken as a ground to deny benefits of a divorced woman – Impugned order granting maintenance affirmed. (Para 6)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482/[Section 528 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Satisfactory, convincing and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist before such jurisdiction is invoked and exercised – It must be shown that miscarriage of justice would otherwise Result: Invocation of jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be routine or as a matter of course – Such jurisdiction shall not be lightly invoked to interfere with discretion exercised by trial court and revisional court or with findings of fact rendered by such courts – Unless such exercises of discretion and findings of fact are grossly erroneous and perverse, and unless such vice leads to miscarriage of justice, this Court cannot and will not be persuaded to invoke such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. (Para 6)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
This Crl.M.C. traces its origin to a petition filed by the respondent wife invoking Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1986’). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery had vide Annexure 3 order allowed the said petition and the challenge against the same before the Sessions Court, Thalassery was repelled vide Annexure 4 order. The aggrieved husband has now moved this Court with this Crl.M.C., challenging both Annexures 3 and 4.
2. Petitioner married the respondent on 27.2.2011. The Family Court, Kannur, dissolved the marriage on 6.7.2013, on the grounds of impotency of the petitioner, his cruelty towards her and as per the Quranic injunctions as envisaged under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. Respondent thereafter filed M.C.No.21 of 2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery, invoking Section 3 of the Act of 1986 and seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay maintenance for the Iddat period at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for three months as well as an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the fair provision and future maintenance of the respondent. After due hearing and recording of evidence, Annexure 3 order was rendered therein by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent a total amount of Rs.15,000/- towards iddat maintenance and Rs.5,00,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision of maintenance. Petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.31 of 2018 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, challenging the order of the CJM. The same was dismissed by the Sessions Court, inter alia, holding that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate is plausible and that the amount awarded by the learned Magistrate is reasonable, fair and not excessive. Contending that the CJM had not considered the means of the petitioner and that satisfaction of the Magistrate as to the divorced husband’s failure or neglect to pay maintenance to the divorced wife, despite having sufficient means, is a mandatory prerequisite contemplated under Section 3 (3) (a) of the Act of 1986 and further that while awarding maintenance under such a petition, the determination of the maintenance amount shall be based on the need of the divorced wife, standard of life enjoyed by her during the marriage and the means of the divorced husband, none of which had been considered firstly by the CJM and later by the revisional court, this Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner.
3. Heard Sri. M.K. Sumod, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri. Mohamed Jameel P.K., Advocate for the 1st respondent and Sri. Sanal P. Raj, learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent.
4. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the CJM is unsustainable in law and the revisional court had erred in overlooking the illegality committed by the CJM. It is submitted that the petitioner and his parents are coolie workers and as a salesman in Bangalore, he had been earning only a meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. He is an uneducated man who is unable to advance in his job. He is under an obligation to maintain his aged parents. On the legal grounds, it is contended that the needs of the divorced wife, the standard of life enjoyed by her during her marriage and the means of her former husband had not been legally established before fixing the quantum. The mandatory prerequisites contemplated under Section 3(3)(a) of the Act of 1986 had not been complied with. The determination of maintenance amount ought to have been based on the above mentioned grounds. The Magistrate ought to have been satisfied that the husband had sufficient means and had failed or neglected to make or pay to the wife within the iddat period a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for her. Though the said error of the CJM was pointed out before the Sessions Court in revision, the same was not properly appreciated. The order of the Se
(1) Award of maintenance to divorced Muslim wife – Quantum of maintenance to be fixed should be adequate to enable wife to live with dignity, similar to standard with which she would have lived in he....
In determining maintenance under the Muslim Women Act, courts must assess the husband's means, the wife's needs, and ensure support is adequate for a dignified living.
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable maintenance under the Muslim Women Act, and cannot claim double benefit from both the Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The court affirmed that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair maintenance during and beyond the iddat period, reflecting her future needs and the husband's capacity to pay.
Court reaffirmed the rights of a divorced Muslim woman under relevant statutory provisions, emphasizing financial assessment based on several factors.
A divorced Muslim woman can assert her right to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. despite prior agreements, if those agreements fail to provide adequate future support.
Maintenance – Right of a Muslim divorced woman to invoke secular statutory provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) is not entirely barred, even if her former husband discharges his ....
A divorced Muslim woman's right to maintenance extends beyond the iddat period, and applications for enhancement may invoke multiple legal provisions, including the Muslim Women Act and CrPC.
A minor child of a divorced Muslim woman retains the right to claim maintenance beyond two years under S.125 of the Cr. P. C., unaffected by S.3(b) of the Act of 1986.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
