A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance during the iddat period and fair provision thereafter, which can be adjusted based on her remarriage and the husband's financial capacity.

Headnote:
Maintenance - Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 - Section 3 - The court interpreted Section 3 of the MWPRD Act, emphasizing the entitlement of a divorced Muslim woman to maintenance during the iddat period and fair provision thereafter, adjusting amounts based on remarriage and income evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner challenged a Magistrate's order granting maintenance and provision to his divorced wife under the MWPRD Act, arguing that the order was erroneous due to the wife's remarriage and lack of evidence regarding his income.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate's order was partially justified but needed adjustment, particularly in the calculation of fair provision, considering the wife's remarriage and the husband's income.
Issues: Whether the divorced wife is entitled to maintenance and fair provision after remarriage, and how to calculate these amounts under the MWPRD Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance during the iddat period and fair provision thereafter, but this entitlement can be adjusted based on her remarriage and the husband's financial capacity.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the revision petition, reducing the fair provision from Rs.28,40,000 to Rs.14,00,000 while confirming maintenance for the iddat period.

ORDER

1^st respondent in M.C.No.41/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kanjirappally, has filed this Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order passed in the above M.C along with M.C.No.77/2018 and 42/2020, whereby the learned Magistrate allowed petition filed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (`MWPRD Act’ for short) granting Rs.90,000/- (@ 30,000 per month) as maintenance for the iddat period and also Rs.28,40,000/- as fair and reasonable provision to the divorced wife of the revision petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were served with notice, they didn’t appear. The 1^st respondent is State of Kerala, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. While assailing the order granting reliefs set forth above, it is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the order impugned is absolutely illegal, irregular and arbitrary for the reasons stated in Ground B of this Revision Petition that, admittedly the petitioner in the MC had left the company of the husband on 17.08.2018, the first Thalakku was pronounced on 29.12.2019 and the last one on 07.03.2020. The 2^nd respondent herein (the petitioner in MC) got remarried on 09.05.2022, that too, during pendency of the MC. In view of the above admitted facts, the scope of enquiry under S.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is limited to the maintenance payable by the husband during the period of iddat and the reasonable and fair provision for her during the period from 7.3.2020 (the date of Talaq) and till the date of remarriage (9.5.2022) whereas in the instant case the learned Magistrate has embarked on absolutely erroneous conclusions and allowed the claims of the petitioner wife, ignoring her re-marriage and without being supported by any evidence regarding the income of her husband and the nature of life she had enjoyed in her matrimonial home.

4. It is argued further that while examining the divorced wife as PW1, she had given evidence that after the pronouncement of talaq, she married another man and he is a native of Thrissur, doing business. But without support of any evidence that the revision petitioner is a man earning fairly, huge amount was granted by the impugned order and thus the same is erroneous. On these grounds, the learned counsel sought for interference in the order.

5. In this matter, the fact of divorce effected by the revision petitioner by pronouncing talaq-ahsan is not in dispute. The date of the first ta.laq was on 29.12.2019 and the third one was on 07.03.2020. The wife of the revision petitioner claimed Rs.2 crores as fair and reasonable provision for her and also claimed Rs.50,000/- each towards maintenance for the iddat period. As far as relief (c) and (d) sought for in the M.C, the learned Magistrate relegated the reliefs to be claimed before the Family Court, recording the submission in this regard at the instance of the divorced wife.

6. Coming to grant of Rs.30,000/- each as maintenance for 3 months, viz., a total sum of Rs.90,000/-, the learned Magistrate considered the relevant decisions on this point and in consideration of the ratio therein, the learned Magistrate found that the 1^st respondent would earn at least Rs.10 lakh per month and the standard of living for a person having such an income, Rs.20,000/- each per month would be necessary for food, clothing and medicine. Further Rs.10,000/- would be necessary for conveyance and for other unforeseen expenses. Accordingly, Rs.30,000/- was granted for fair and reasonable provision for the iddat period. The learned Magistrate also, after fixing the monthly income, granted the other relief as stated in paragraph 20 of the impugned order as under:

“20. It is further to be noted that due to the sudden pronouncement of talaq by R1, the petitioner was left without a marital life an uncertain period till

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40964

A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance during the iddat period and fair provision thereafter, which can be adjusted based on her remarriage and the husband's financial capacity.

Login now and unlock premium legal research