K. Hema, J.

1. Is a divorced Muslim woman entitled to get, u/s 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 ('the Act' for short) any payment from her former husband exclusively for iddat period, towards her expenses or maintenance, over and above "provision and maintenance" to be made and paid under the Act? What is the relevancy of "iddat period", in respect of the claim for "provision and maintenance" u/s 3 of the Act? These are the main questions to be considered in this case. Admittedly, petitioner married first respondent herein on 15.3.1998, under the Muslim law. Within six months of the marriage, on 8.8.1998, he divorced her. Thereafter, on 16.3.1999, she filed a petition u/s 3 of the Act, claiming Rs. 2,500/- per month towards expenses for iddat period, and also Rs. 5,00,000/- towards fair provision and maintenance. She also made other claims for value of gold ornaments etc.

2. Petitioner is working in Dubai and he is allegedly getting an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month. Therefore, taking into consideration status of the parties, first respondent contended that she is entitled to get Rs. 5,00,000/- towards fair provision and maintenance. It is also admitted that pending enquiry into the petition, she re-married on 19.11.2000.

3. Petitioner filed a counter statement and contended that amount claimed is highly excessive. Considering the income of petitioner and needs of his divorced wife, first respondent is not entitled to get the exorbitant amount claimed by her, it is contended, According to him, he is only a salesman in a small establishment in Dubai and he is getting only Rs. 4,000/-, excluding his expenses.

4. An enquiry was conducted by the Magistrate Court into the petition and an order was passed, directing petitioner to pay to first respondent Rs. 1,62,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month, for a period of 27 months, from date of divorce till date of re-marriage. Additionally, Rs. 7,500/- was also ordered to be paid by petitioner towards her expenses during iddat period. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 1,69,500/- was granted to first respondent. The other claims were rejected.

5. Petitioner challenged the above order in a revision before the Sessions Court but, it was dismissed. Hence, he filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short).

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that reasonable and fair provision can be calculated only @ Rs. 2,500/- per month for 27 months, since first respondent claimed only Rs. 2,500/- per month towards expenses during iddat period. She is not entitled to get more than such amount during balance period, it is submitted. Learned Sessions Judge observed in paragraph 13 of the order thus : "during iddat period, divorced woman has to lead a secluded life and she will not be permitted to have luxurious life or to have a standard of life enjoyed by her, during the subsistence of her marriage", it was pointed out. According to learned counsel for petitioner, by the above observations, learned Sessions Judge was giving justification for granting a lesser amount during iddat period.

7. No where in law it is stated that divorced Muslim woman should lead a secluded or simple life during the iddat period and that she would be entitled only for a meagre amount during iddat period, it is argued. The standard of life which a woman enjoys during iddat period and thereafter is the same and hence, claim for reasonable and fair provision also should be assessed only on the basis of Rs. 2,500/- per month for 27 months, it is argued.

8. It was also argued that Magistrate court committed a mistake in awarding more amount than what she claimed, and fixing Rs. 6,000/- per month towards fair provision and maintenance. It is also submitted that out of the amount ordered, petitioner had already deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- before trial court and hence, the order u/s 3 of the Act may be restricted to s