B. Kemal Pasha, J.

A poor girl of 17 was, unfortunately, given in marriage, evidently without her consent, to the petitioner herein. The parties are Muslims. In fact, the contract of marriage was entered into by overlooking the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The plight of the poor girl, after the marriage was horrible. She was tortured and harassed to the maximum. Admittedly, an amount of 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing 30 sovereigns were obtained by the petitioner from the parents of the girl at the time of marriage. He has spent all the money and misappropriated the gold ornaments. Harassment continued. In the meant time, she became pregnant. In the seventh month of her pregnancy, she was thrown out of the matrimonial house. Her condition was serious and there was severe bleeding. The girl was taken to a hospital from where she was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, where she had undergone treatment as inpatient. The petitioner, who was the husband, or any one of his relatives, did not care even to pay a visit to the hospital. Finally, she gave birth to a male child. In the mean time, the petitioner, who was in search of other similar fertile avenues, had gone into a form of marriage with another girl.

2. The relatives of the girl, including her father, filed a complaint before the Thenhipalam Police Station, which culminated in a compromise talk at the instance of the Police at the Police Station, in which the petitioner and his relatives on the one part and the relatives of the poor girl on the other part had participated. The Police decided that the matter could be settled by permitting the petitioner to repay an amount of Rs. 90,000/- out of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and by return 10 sovereigns of gold only out of 30 sovereigns of gold misappropriated by the petitioner. The relatives of the girl had no other go than to succumb to the pressure of the Police, and Ext. P1 agreement to that effect was entered into on 20.11.2002. As per the said agreement, the petitioner had agreed to return the said amount of Rs. 90,000/- and the 10 sovereigns of gold on or before 30.1.2003.

3. The petitioner has not cared to comply with the said conditions in Ext. P1 agreement, thereby, the relatives of the girl had to approach the Police again. The Police called the petitioner and enquired the matter. Then, the petitioner agreed to make the said payment and to return the said quantity of gold on 3.2.2003. The girl along with his father and a relative went over to the Police Station on 3.2.2003. Then, to their utter dismay, they were directed to sign in another agreement for getting the repayment of Rs. 90,000/- and the gold ornaments weighing 10 sovereigns covered by Ext. P1 agreement. The thumb impression of the girl was obtained and Ext. D1 notarised agreement was created. Strangely enough, it seems that Ext. D1 was attested by an Advocate who is a notary, who was also appearing for the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Parappanangadi, in the very same case!

4. According to the petitioner, the Talaq was pronounced on 28.1.2003; whereas according to the father of the girl, she came to know from the Juma-at Secretary that there was a Talaq pronounced by the petitioner on 7th February, 2003. Whatever it is, presently there is no dispute with regard to the so called extra judicial divorce. The specific case of the girl is that apart from getting an amount of Rs. 90,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold as contained in Ext. P1 agreement, on 3.2.2003 at the Police Station, she was not paid any amount towards maintenance during the period of Iddath as well as fair provision and maintenance. It is a pity that the girl has not challenged the contents of Ext. P1, even though it contained a lesser payment of amount than what was received by the petitioner from the father of the girl and also a meagre quantity of 10 sovereigns gold, out of the 30 sovereigns of gold orname