The former husband is obligated to provide reasonable and fair provision to the divorced wife within the iddat period, based on his means and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. The provision is intended to prevent destitution and is not meant for unlawful gain or unjust enrichment. If the former husband has already provided sufficient property to the divorced wife during the marriage, she is not entitled to claim additional provision.

K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

The petitioner in M.C. No. 31/92 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Varkala is the revision petitioner. The order dated 30.12.1992isunder challenge.

2. The revision petitioner filed the M.C. before the lower court claiming certain amounts under S.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 from her former husband the respondent herein. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent under Muslim Law on 22.6.1972, the birth of three children in that wedlock and the divorce of the petitioner by the respondent on 1.7.1991 are admitted. The petitioner claimed Rs. 1500/- as maintenance during the period of iddat, Rs. 51/- as dower, Rs. 25,000/- being the value of the gold ornaments belonging to her and appropriated by the respondent, Rs. 1,50,000/- being the value of the property belonging to the petitioner and sold and appropriated by the respondent, and Rs.1 lakh being reasonable and fair provision. Thus a total amount of Rs. 2,76,551/-is claimed by the petitioner from the respondent.

3. The respondent contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the claims made by her and he is not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner on any of the claims made in the petition.

4. The lower court after trial found that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 1500/- as maintenance during the period of iddat at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem under S.3(1)(a) of the Act, Rs. 51/- as unpaid dower under S.3(1)(c) of the Act and disallowed the other claims made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the lower Court, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

5. Though in the revision petition the petitioner has contended that she is entitled to Rs.1 lakh being reasonable and fair provision, Rs. 1,50,000/- being the value of her properties appropriated by the respondent by selling the properties, and Rs. 25,000/-being the value of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to her and appropriated by the respondent, it is clear from the evidence on record and the finding arrived at by the lower court in point No. 4 that the petitioner has not adduced any satisfactory evidence to prove that the respondent has appropriated the value of the two items of properties amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- being the value of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments belong to her and therefore, the lower court rightly found that the petitioner is not entitled to claim those amounts from the respondent.

6. What remains for consideration is whether the claim made by the petitioner for Rs .1 lakh as reasonable and fair provision under S.3(1) (a) of the Act against the respondent is sustainable and whether the lower Court is justified in disallowing that claim made by the petitioner.

7. The respondent has contended that the revision petitioner had filed O.S.18/92 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram claiming maintenance from the respondent for himself and children and the Family Court after finding that the revision petitioner and the children are residing in the house belonging to the respondent and they are enjoying the properties belonging to the respondent held that they are not

entitled to any maintenance from the respondent. A certified copy of the judgment passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram dated 30.1.1993 in O.S.18/92 is produced along with Cr1.M.P. No. 4399/98 in this Crl.R.P. According to the respondent the judgment passed by the Family Court in O.S.18/92 is not challenged in appeal or revision and the same has become final. Therefore, according to the dismissal of O.S.18/92 filed by the revision petitioner and the children claiming maintenance from the respondent by the Family Court after holding that the revision petitioner and the children are in possession and enjoyment of the house and properties belonging to the respondent, disentitles the revision petitioner from claiming any reasonable and fair provisi