IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair maintenance during and beyond the iddat period, reflecting her future needs and the husband's capacity to pay.

ORDER :

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C’ for short), challenging Annexure A3 order in Crl.R.P.No.10/2019 on the files of the Additions Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, and Annexure A2 order in M.C.No.77/2010, on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents, including Annexures-A3 and A2.

3. Coming to the facts of this case, the 1st respondent herein as petitioner filed M.C.No.77/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, claiming reliefs under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (`Act, 1986’ for short). It was contended by the 1st respondent before the trial court that the petitioner herein married her on 03.11.2002 as per the Muslim religious rites and customs and a female child also was born to them. While so, on 08.02.2019, the petitioner herein pronounced talaq. On completion of talaq, she observed iddat from 08.02.2010 till 08.05.2010. Though talaq was pronounced, the petitioner herein failed to provide the reasonable and fair maintenance entitled to her and also did not return gold and other valuables of the 1st respondent. Accordingly, she sought the same.

4. The petition before the trial court was opposed by the revision petitioner contending that the 1st respondent herein is not entitled to the reliefs sought for.

5. The learned Magistrate appraised the contention by recording evidence. The 1st respondent got examined as PW1 and one witness examined as PW2. The revision petitioner got examined as DW1 and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on his side. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:

“Based on the findings on Point No.1 to 3 it is found that the petitioner is entitled for the maintenance for the iddat period, entitled for the fair and reasonable provision and also entitled to realize her assets with the respondent.

In the result petition is allowed. The respondent is ordered to pay Rs.30,000/-as maintenance to the petitioner for the iddat period. The respondent has been ordered to pay Rs.9,00,000/-as reasonable and fair provision to the petitioner. It is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs.2,30,000/-to the petitioner being the value of Rado watch and the Acharam amount. The petitioner is further directed to pay the ordered amounts within 90 days from the date of this order. While considering the nature of the petition, there is no order as to costs.”

6. Crl.R.P.No.10/2019 was filed by the petitioner herein before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and as per order dated 31.08.2022, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on re-appreciation of the evidence, modified the order as under:

“In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed to partly set aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 in MC 77/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal and it is ordered as follows:-

“(i) The respondent/revision petitioner do pay an amount of Rs.30,000/-(Thirty Thousand only) to the original petitioner as maintenance for the `iddath’ period together with a simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Crl.M.C to the date of realization of that amount.

(ii) The respondent/revision petitioner do pay an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-(Nine Lakhs) as a reasonable and fair provision to the original petitioner together with a simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of Crl.M.C to the date of realisation of that amount.

(iii) That relief granted by the trial court to direct the respondent/revision petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- to the petitioner under the head of `Acharam’ and `price of Rado watch’ is hereby set aside and that claim in the Crl.M.C is disallowed.

(iv) The revision petitioner/respondent is directed to pay the amounts in Relief No.1 and 2 to the or