Divorced women are entitled to maintenance that reflects their pre-divorce standard of living, and courts have limited grounds for altering appellate decisions on maintenance amounts.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.10.2012 in M.C.No.250/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara and also the common order dated 30.01.2015 in Crl.R.P.Nos.12 of 2013 and 13/2013 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadakara.

2.The petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.250/2010 filed by the 1st respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara and the case was filed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce) Act 1986 claiming reasonable and fair provision for maintenance as a divorced wife along with iddah period. There were other prayers also in the petition. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition in part by granting maintenance during iddah period as Rs.9,000/- and towards reasonable and fair provision, Rs.1,80,000/-.Crl.M.C.1705/2017

3.Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.12/2013 and the respondent filed Crl.R.P.No.13/2013.

These two revisions were considered together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadakara. Learned Sessions Judge allowed Crl.R.P.No.13/2013 filed by the 1st respondent by enhancing the amount of reasonable and fair provision to Rs.3,60,000/- instead of Rs.1,80,000/- ordered by the learned Magistrate.

4.When this Criminal Miscellaneous Case came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.13/2013 by which the learned Sessions Judge enhanced the fair and reasonable provision from Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.3,60,000/-.

5.This Court perused the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the revisional court.

‘22.In this case the age of the wife at the time of filing of the petition is shown to be 27 years. She has two children born in the wedlock with the husband. She is still remaining unmarried. The amount to be awarded must be to lead a life consistent with the standard of life which she enjoyed before the divorce. It is further to be noted that a Crl.M.C.1705/2017 divorced wife who was awarded fair and reasonable maintenance can not again come to the trial court to re-fix the same even if there is change of circumstance later.

Considering the above aspects, it appears to me that a multiplier of 10 years at the rate of Rupees. 3000/- has to be adopted to fix reasonable and fair provision and maintenance. It would come to Rupees. 3,60,000/-(3000x12x10=3,60,000/). It is at the rate Rupees.3,000/-per month the trial court awarded Rupees.9000/- as maintenance for iddat period which can be said to be reasonable.’

6.The revisional court, after considering the ground reality, a small increase is made as far as fair and reasonable provision is concerned. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with such findings in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is very limited.

There cannot be any re-consideration on merit of the order passed by the fact finding authority, invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.