If there was a dissolution of marriage under mubara'at whether a divorced wife is entitled to claim Mahr, maintenance during the Iddat period and fair and reasonable provision. This is the question to be settled in this petition.

2. There is no dispute on the factual matrix of the case. Petitioner and first respondent are Muslims and admittedly were husband and wife. Their marriage was on 30/5/2002. A child was born in that wed lock on 12/2/2003. The marriage was dissolved on 14/3/2004. First respondent filed M.C.21/2004 under Section 3(1) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming maintenance for the Iddat period, fair and reasonable provision, maintenance for a period of two years for the child, return of Mahr of 36 grams of gold and return of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments.

3. Petitioner resisted the claim contending that Rs.50,000/- which was received at the time of marriage and 36 grams of gold received as Mahr, were returned at the time of dissolution of the marriage. It was also contended that gold ornaments of the first respondent were with her at the time of dissolution of the marriage and therefore, she is not entitled to claim it back. It is contended that petitioner is only a porter and is getting only very limited income and therefore, he cannot pay the amount claimed. It was also contended that dissolution was by talak and petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as claimed.

4. Learned Magistrate on the evidence of first respondent and her two witnesses, petitioner and his witness, Secretary of the Mosque Committee and Exts.P1 to P5 found that as a divorced wife petitioner is liable to pay Rs.6,000/- as maintenance for the Iddat period, Rs, 1,20,000/- as fair and reasonable provision and Rs.12,000/- towards maintenance of the child for a period of two years from the date of birth, Rs, 19,800/-being the value of 36 grams of gold ornaments received by the petitioner as Mahr and Rs,88,000/- being the value of 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to first respondent and entrusted with the petitioner.

5. Petitioner challenged the order before Sessions court. Kottayam in Crl.R.P.28/2007. Learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence found that first respondent is entitled to fair and reasonable provision and upheld the direction to pay Rs.1,20,000/-. It was also found that first respondent is entitled to Rs.12,000/- being the maintenance expense of the child for a period of two years from the date of birth. It was also found that first respondent is entitled to Rs.19,800/-, being the value of the gold ornaments paid as Mahr and in addition she is entitled to get Rs.88,000/- being the value of 15 sovereigns of gold. Directions to pay maintenance during the Iddat period was set aside holding that when reasonable and fair provision is made, separate, maintenance for the period of Iddat need not be paid. Though that finding is unsustainable and in addition to fair and reasonable and in addition wife is entitled to get maintenance for the Iddat period, as first respondent did not challenge the order, that portion of the order of the revisional court cannot be interfered.

6. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge contending that courts below should have found that the entire liability of the petitioner was settled between the parties and the amount payable was fixed in writing in the presence of mediators and there is no further liability to be discharged as provided under the Act and therefore, no further amount is payable. It is also contended that as first respondent has received Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner, consequent to the settlement of the disputes at the time of divorce, she is not entitled to approach the court for any further amount and therefore the orders are to be quashed.

7. Arguments of the learned