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