Petitioner is a divorced Muslim woman. She impugns the order passed by the trial court rejecting her application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act') claiming a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her former husband, towards fair and reasonable provision and maintenance and other statutory dues. The learned Magistrate held that the petitioner was not entitled to get any amount from her former husband, since she had already received whatever was due under Ext.D1 agreement.

2. Is the above view legally valid and sustainable?

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent/husband had divorced the petitioner unilaterally, by pronouncing talaq through his communication dated February 5, 1996, which was produced and marked as Ext.P1 in the case. Petitioner approached the Court below claiming that she was entitled to get fair and reasonable provision and maintenance and other customary dues as provided under Section 3 of the Act, being a divorced woman as defined under the Act. Her contention was that her former husband had not paid any amount towards the above statutory dues though he had been earning a monthly income of Rs.7,000/- from his employment in a Sea Food Company.

4. The above claim was resisted by the respondent contending inter alia that the petitioner had been paid whatever was payable by him under law. He contended that he was not earning Rs.7,000/- per month as alleged by the petitioner nor had been getting any income from any other sources. He further contended that he had already returned ornaments weighing 12 sovereigns and cash of Rs.15,000/-given to her by her parents and relatives at the time of the marriage. He pressed into service Ext.D1 agreement executed between him and his former wife evidencing such payment. The learned Magistrate accepted the above contention primarily relying on a decision of this court in Mytheen V. Saphiya (1993 (2) KLT 322).

5. As mentioned earlier, the specific case of the respondent/husband before the court below was that he had paid all the customary and statutory dues payable by him as provided under Section 3 of the Act apart from returning the gold ornaments and cash of Rs.15,000/- received by the petitioner from her parents at the time of her marriage. He pressed into service Ext.D1 agreement in support of the above contention.

6. It is pertinent to note that Ext.D1 agreement was admittedly executed by the petitioner and the respondent at Valappad Police Station. It is seen from Ext.D1 that a total sum of Rs.60,792/- was paid by the respondent to the petitioner. The relevant recital in Ext.D1 agreement which is in Malayalam is extracted hereunder:

MALAYALAM

7. The above recital, in my view, will only mean that the sum of Rs.60,792/- being the value of gold ornaments weighing 12 sovereigns and cash of Rs.15,000/- received by the petitioner from her relatives at the time of her marriage were returned to her. But the respondent while he was examined as RW1 had attempted to give a new interpretation to the above recital by saying that he had handed over the ornaments weighing 12 sovereigns to the petitioner apart from paying Rs.15,000/-in cash. 8. However, it was asserted by the petitioner that the value of one sovereign was Rs.4,722/- at that time (which was not controverted) and 12 sovereigns would have cost Rs.45,792/-. According to her, the value of 12 sovereigns plus Rs.15,000/- totalling to Rs.60,792/-only was paid by the respondent at the time of execution of the agreement.

9. It is true that the respondent had disputed the correctness of the above contention in his cross-examination. But I find that the calculation made by the petitioner on the basis of the value of one sovereign at the relevant point of time, is eminently plausible and acceptable.

10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The Police Constable who was working at Valappad Police Station at the relevant point of time was examined as PW