The judgment emphasizes the interplay between personal law, statutory rights, and public policy in the context of Muslim divorce law, highlighting the enforceability of agreements relinquishing maintenance rights and the over-riding effect of S.3 of the Act on S.125 of the Code.

Parties in these two revisions were once husband and wife. They are muslims. When (heir daughter reached the age of two, they decided to dissolve (heir marriage for reasons' good or bad. On 13-6-1983, they brought about a dissolution of their marriage by executing a mutually agreed document (Ext.Dl). Thereafter the woman (her name is Saphiya) remained unmarried, but the man (his name is Mylhccn) secured another wife in whom he got two more children now. When the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act) came into force, Saphiya wanted to avail herself of the benefits under the Act. So she filed a petition claiming reasonable and fair provision envisaged in S.3of the Act. Learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, directed Mytheen to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- as reasonable and fair provision. Mytheen challenges the order in revision. Saphiya also challenges the order as she is aggrieved by the quantum fixed. According to her, the amount of reasonable and fair provision should be far higher than the amount now fixed.

2. If Saphiya is to succeed, she has to circumvent the principal impediment sprouted from Ext.D1 agreement as per which she acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs. 11,000/- from Mytheen and relinquished her right to get future maintenance. There is no dispute that Ext.D1 was executed by both Mytheen and Saphiya. The document contains a recital that Saphiya received Rs.11,000/- from Mytheen in full and final settlement of all claims against him and that she shall not make any further claim against Mytheen either towards maintenance or any other count.

3. Learned counsel for Mytheen contended that the terms of the divorce agreement should be respected by both parties and one party cannot be permitted to unilaterally resile therefrom. On the other hand, counsel for Saphiya argued that the terms in Ext.D1 relinquishing the right to maintenance is opposed to public policy and hence that cannot be used to scuttle the statutory right of divorced woman protected by S.3 of the Act. He relied on the decision of Kliadcr, J. mDa/noclaran r. Lakshmikutty Amma (1979 KLT 543). It was held in the said decision that no party can be permitted to contract himself out of a statutory obligation and if permitted it would defeat the legal right statutorily confirmed in Chap.IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (fur short 'the Code'). The provisions contained in the said chapter were specially enacted as a measure of social justice to protect woman and children and to provide a speedy and summary remedy to the descried and neglected wife and her children to prevent vagrancy, according to the learned Judge. In the said judgment reliance was placed on the observations made in the decisions in Sndasivan Nair Kamalakshi (ILR 1975 (1) Ker. 531) and Aboobmker v. Kacleesu (1961 KLT 481).

5. The question considered and decided in the aforesaid cases centred on the provisions contained in Ss.125 and 127 of the Code. A distinction is sought to be made out in this case on the premise that what is recognized in the Act is not a right based on public policy, but was only providing a procedure for enforcement of a personal right.

6. The preamble of the Act shows that it is an enactment "to protect the rights of Muslim Women who have been divorced by or have obtained a divorce from their husband....". "A divorced woman is defined as a Muslim woman who was married according to Muslim Law and has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband in accordance with Muslim Law.

7. Under Muhammadan Law,' a woman can be divorced through 'Talak-al-sunna", or through v. Talak-albida' orvTalak-e-lafwiz' or by a bilateral divorce (either Mubara 'at or Khula) or through the provisions of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939. The definition "divorced woman" in the Act is of wide import as to embrace within its fold a woman divorced by or through any of the modes recognised by Muhammadan law.

8. In