The main legal point established is the interpretation of S.3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, emphasizing the liability of the former husband to provide maintenance and fair provision within the period of iddat.

K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

This Crl. M.C. is filed by the respondent in M.C. No. 3/1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyoli to quash annexure- a and B orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court against the petitioner.

2. The M.C. was filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner claiming amounts under S.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The trial court after trial by order dated 18.5.1996 directed the petitioner to pay the 1 st respondent Rs. 10,500/- being the value of the balance mahar of 31/2 sovereigns, Rs. 4500/- being the maintenance during the period of Iddat, Rs. 30,000/-being the value of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs. 50,000/- given to the petitioner by the father of the 1st respondent and Rs. 90,000/- by way of future maintenance. The petitioner assailed that order before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.R.P. No. 44/96. The revisional court allowed the revision in part and confirmed the order passed by the trial court directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 4500/- being maintenance during the period of Iddat, Rs. 50,000/- being the amount given to the petitioner by the father of the 1st respondent and Rs. 90,000/- being the reasonable and fair provision and disallowed the other amounts allowed by the trial court. This M.C. is filed to quash the orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court awarding those amounts.

3. The 1 st respondent has contended that the above Cr1.M.C. being in the nature of a second revision is not maintainable and under the guise of a proceeding under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. and this Court cannot reappraise the evidence and set aside the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial court as well as the revisional court. But it is contended by the petitioner that he is only placing before this Court the errors of law committed by the courts below by accepting the evidence on record.

4. It is well settled that if the lower courts had committed any error of law in arriving at the findings or the orders passed by the courts below have resulted in manifest injustice, this Court is competent to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under S.48 2 of the Cr.P.C. to rectify the mistake committed by the lower

courts.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is clear from the statement of objects and reasons for the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act that the law was enacted to provide the Muslim divorced women for a reasonable and fair provision for maintenance within the period of Iddat by her former husband. He also argued that by interpreting the provisions of S.3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Aliyar v. Pathu (1988 (2) KLT 446) has observed as follows:

"Besides paying maintenance to the divorced wife for the Iddat, former husband has to provide reasonably and fairly for the future needs of the divorced wife, ie., use of the divorced wife after the period of Iddat period and till her marriage or death".

Therefore, he submitted that what is contemplated under S.3(1) of the Act is payment of maintenance to the divorced wife till her re-marriage or death. He also argued that in this case it is admitted by the 1 st respondent that she got re-married during the above proceedings before the trial Court and therefore, she was entitled to reasonable and fair provision provided under S.3(1) of the Act only from the date of expiry of Iddat period till her re-marriage. Therefore, according to him, the award of Rs. 90,000/- being reasonable and fair provision to the 1 st respondent in this case by the trial court and confirmation of that finding by the revisional court are absolutely illegal and unsustainable.

6. The trial court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 90,000/- being reasonable and fair provision by calculating maintenance for five years at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per mensem. The