ORDER :

1. This Crl. M.C. has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam (for short ‘the court below’) in Crl. R.P. No. 17/2017 dated 17th November, 2018.

2. The petitioner herein was the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent. The parties are Muslims. Their marriage was solemnized on 15.6.2008. A male child was born out of the wedlock. Admittedly, the 1st respondent divorced the petitioner by pronouncing talaq on 15.12.2013. The petitioner filed a petition at the court below u/s 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, the Act of 1986) as MC No. 17/2015 claiming Rs. 1 crore towards reasonable and fair provision for the future, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards maintenance for iddat period, for return of 70 grams of gold given as mahr, and for return of Rs. 1,41,680/- as the value of 56 grams of gold allegedly given to her by her parents and took away by the 1st respondent. Admittedly the 1st respondent was employed at Doha, Qatar. The petitioner along with the child were also staying with him. The petitioner alleged in the petition that the respondent was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, the said case set up by the petitioner was disputed by the 1st respondent contending that he was drawing only a salary of Rs. 60,000/-.

3. The parties went on trial. The petitioner was examined as PW-1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The father of the 1st respondent was examined as DW-1. He was also the power of attorney holder of the 1st respondent. Exts.D1 to D7 were marked on the side of the respondents. After a detailed analysis of the evidence adduced, the learned Magistrate found that the petitioner has succeeded in proving that the 1st respondent was drawing a monthly income of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The learned Magistrate further found that the petitioner and her son require at least Rs. 33,000/- per month for their livelihood. Reckoning the said amount for a period of 8 years, the learned Magistrate granted an amount of Rs. 31,68,000/- as fair and reasonable provision and maintenance u/s 3 of the Act of 1986. The 1st respondent challenged the said order before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl. R.P. No. 17/2017. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and remanded the case to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration. Before the Sessions Court, the 1st respondent herein produced a salary certificate allegedly issued by his employer. The remand was essentially to give an opportunity to the 1st respondent to prove the said salary certificate and thus to prove his actual income. The order of remand passed by the Sessions Court is under challenge in this Crl. M.C.

4. I have heard Sri.Rajasimhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T.M. Abdul Latheef, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. It is trite that the court while fixing the reasonable and fair provision of maintenance to be paid to a divorced woman shall keep in view the status of parties, capacity of the former husband to pay maintenance and also other attendant circumstances. The amount so fixed must be enough to take care of the future needs of a woman in the prevailing socio-economic scenario. [See Seenath vs. Iqbal and Another, 2009 (2) KHC 1009 and Aboobacker C.K. vs. Rahiyanath and Another, 2008 (3) KHC 492]. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner is a well qualified lady. She possesses M.Sc Degree in Chemistry, M.Tech in Industrial Catalysis and B.Ed in Physical Science. She was enrolled as a junior research fellow at CUSAT and also selected for a project work at Baba Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai during 2008-2009. It has further come out in evidence that her father is a reputed B class contractor of Public Works Department and brother and sisters are well settled. The 1st respondent was working as a lab technician in Red Crescent Workers' Health Centre,