In determining maintenance under the Muslim Women Act, courts must assess the husband's means, the wife's needs, and ensure support is adequate for a dignified living.

ORDER :

SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.

This Crl.M.C. traces its origin to a petition filed by the respondent wife invoking Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1986'). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery had vide Annexure 3 order allowed the said petition and the challenge against the same before the Sessions Court, Thalassery was repelled vide Annexure 4 order. The aggrieved husband has now moved this Court with this Crl.M.C., challenging both Annexures 3 and 4.

2. Petitioner married the respondent on 27.02.2011. The Family Court, Kannur, dissolved the marriage on 06.07.2013, on the grounds of impotency of the petitioner, his cruelty towards her and as per the Quranic injunctions as envisaged under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. Respondent thereafter filed M.C.No.21 of 2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery, invoking Section 3 of the Act of 1986 and seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay maintenance for the Iddat period at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for three months as well as an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the fair provision and future maintenance of the respondent. After due hearing and recording of evidence, Annexure 3 order was rendered therein by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent a total amount of Rs.15,000/- towards iddat maintenance and Rs.5,00,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision of maintenance. Petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.31 of 2018 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, challenging the order of the CJM. The same was dismissed by the Sessions Court, inter alia, holding that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate is plausible and that the amount awarded by the learned Magistrate is reasonable, fair and not excessive. Contending that the CJM had not considered the means of the petitioner and that satisfaction of the Magistrate as to the divorced husband's failure or neglect to pay maintenance to the divorced wife, despite having sufficient means, is a mandatory prerequisite contemplated under Section 3 (3) (a) of the Act of 1986 and further that while awarding maintenance under such a petition, the determination of the maintenance amount shall be based on the need of the divorced wife, standard of life enjoyed by her during the marriage and the means of the divorced husband, none of which had been considered firstly by the CJM and later by the revisional court, this Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner.

3. Heard Sri.M.K.Sumod, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri.Mohamed Jameel P.K., Advocate for the 1^st respondent and Sri.Sanal P. Raj, learned Public Prosecutor for the 2^nd respondent.

4. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the CJM is unsustainable in law and the revisional court had erred in overlooking the illegality committed by the CJM. It is submitted that the petitioner and his parents are coolie workers and as a salesman in Bangalore, he had been earning only a meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. He is an uneducated man who is unable to advance in his job. He is under an obligation to maintain his aged parents. On the legal grounds, it is contended that the needs of the divorced wife, the standard of life enjoyed by her during her marriage and the means of her former husband had not been legally established before fixing the quantum. The mandatory prerequisites contemplated under Section 3 (3)(a) of the Act of 1986 had not been complied with. The determination of maintenance amount ought to have been based on the above mentioned grounds. The Magistrate ought to have been