1. This is a petition filed u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter called as "Code" for short) to quash Annexures-A3 and A4 orders in M.C.16/08 of Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam by invoking inherent jurisdiction. The above M.C. 16/08 was filed by the wife in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam U/s.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), seeking fair provision for maintenance from her former husband. The learned Magistrate ordered payment of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) and Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh fourty thousand only) as the amount payable under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act as reasonable and fair provision and maintenance. Being aggrieved by that order, the husband preferred Crl.R.P.No.71/20008 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, which was also dismissed. In the circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court with the above petition alleging that the above order is illegal, unjust and contrary to settled principles regarding the assessment of fair provision and maintenance U/s.3 of the Act and therefore, it is to be quashed.

2. According to Section 3 of the Act, a divorced woman shall be entitled to get a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance from her former husband, which has to be paid to the wife within the iddat period. Section 3 (1) (a) to (d) of the Act reads as follows:

3. Mahr or other properties of Muslim woman to be given to her at the time of divorce- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a divorced woman shall be entitled to-

(a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband;

(b) where she herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable, and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children;

(c) an amount equal to the sum of mahr (dower) agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage or at any time thereafter according to Muslim law; and

(d) all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends.

A careful reading of the Section indicates that a divorced muslim woman is entitled to get a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance, which includes provision for her food, clothes and other article for a certain period. The Act indicates that the above maintenance shall be given by the husband on or before expiry of the iddat period.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent had suppressed her earlier marriage and she has no physical capacity to lead a normal marital physical relationship with the petitioner. She has not observed iddat, on that ground she is not entitled to get any amount during that period. The learned counsel relied the decision in Ma feed C.A. v. Afira and another 20^^ (1) KHC 22] and contended that she is not entitled to get any special or additional amount exclusively for the expenses or maintenance during iddat period. He also cited another decision Chand Muhammed v. Zeenath [2011(4) KLT 671] and pointed out to follow the earlier ratios drawn by this Court in Majeed's case (supra).

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that there is no reason to interfere in the finding recorded by the trial court and the 1st revisional court. The petitioner is a Central Government employee and having landed properties and getting sufficient amount for paying fair provision and maintenance to the 1st respondent. She had properly observed iddat period, therefore no interference is needed in the finding of the courts below. Therefore, the muslim husband has to pay maintenance to his divorced wi