K. Hema, J.

Is a divorced Muslim woman entitled to have from her former husband, a house for her residence, under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 ('the Act' for short) ? If so, can the court direct a former husband to provide a house to his divorced wife, under Section 3 of the Act ? These are the main questions which arise for consideration in these cases.

2. Petitioner and respondent are muslims. They were husband and wife respectively. After their divorce, petitioner did not make any provision or maintenance to respondent. She continued to live in the same house, where the parties lived after their marriage and which was constructed with her own funds. Respondent was aged 44 years and she is having 4 children and she has no prospects of a re-marriage.

3. According to respondent, petitioner is working in a Government company as a driver from 1975 onwards and he is getting an amount of more than Rs. 50,000/- as salary. He got lot of properties and amounts in the bank. He owns buildings which are rented out. She filed a petition before the Magistrate court, claiming a total amount of Rs. 6,07,500/- under various counts, under Section 3 of the Act, which includes Rs. 3 lakhs towards maintenance. She also sought for a direction to allow her to reside in the house or in the alternative, to direct petitioner to pay Rs. 2 lakhs. She also claimed mahr, value of gold ornaments, gifts etc.

4. Petitioner admitted that he is working abroad, but according to him, the amount claimed is excessive. He also raised a contention that respondent cannot be allowed to reside in the relevant house, as she is a stranger to him after divorce. Evidence was adduced by both sides and an order was passed by Magistrate Court, allowing Rs. 3 lakhs towards "reasonable and fair provision and maintenance". An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was also allowed towards maintenance during iddat period. Other claims were rejected.

5. Both parties challenged the order of the trial court before Sessions Court in revision. Both revision petitions were disposed of by a common order, Annexure-B. The order granting Rs. 3 lakhs towards reasonable and fair provision and maintenance was upheld. The maintenance ordered at Rs. 15,000/- during iddat period was reduced to Rs. 9000/-. The revisional court also held that respondent has no house of her own and hence, petitioner was directed not to evict her from the house. The relevant portion from the said order is as follows :

"maintenance includes shelter too, and as the petitioner has no house of her own and house from which she is attempted to be evicted is constructed with her funds too, a direction to respondent not to evict petitioner from the building where she is staying is essential. Therefore, that too is given".

6. Petitioner filed two separate petitions against Annexure- B common order under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('Criminal Procedure Code ' for short) and those petitions are disposed of by this common order.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner strongly contended that the direction issued by revisional court under section 3 of the Act, not to evict the divorced wife from the house is absolutely illegal. According to him, a muslim divorced wife is a stranger to her former husband and after the divorce, she cannot be allowed to continue in the same house in which parties lived together, during subsistence of marriage. Neither Muslim personal law nor the provisions contained in the Act permits this, it is argued. According to petitioner, the amount ordered by the court below is highly excessive also.

8. Learned counsel for respondent argued that a Muslim woman is entitled for reasonable and fair provision as well as maintenance and both these entitlements are distinctive, as held by Supreme Court in Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3958. A muslim divorce wife is entitled to shelter also and her former husband has the obligation to provide shelter to her and h