Divorced women are entitled to maintenance and fair provision, which must be assessed fairly based on personal circumstances and not arbitrarily limited.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in MC No.357/2005 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Kodungalur, in which she invoked the section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short),claiming relief against her former husband.

2. According to the facts available, the revision petitioner was married to the respondent herein on 13/9/1998. A child was born . Later the matrimonial relationship got strained leading to the several matrimonial proceedings. The respondent pronounced talaq on 25/1/2005. Claiming that the petitioner belonged to a middle class family and that the former husband had not paid her various benefits payable to her,the revision petitioner filed MC No.357/2005. In that she had sought for value of gold ornaments or money which was received from her, the value of mahar, maintenance during the iddah period and reasonable and fair provision under section 3 of the Act. The trial court, on the basis of the evidence let in by both the sides, granted maintenance quantified at the rate of Rs.6,000/- for the iddah period of three months and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as future maintenance.

3. Aggrieved by the above order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, the respondent herein preferred a revision as Cr.R.P.No.67/2008 before the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. The revisional court re-evaluated the entire evidence and confirmed the relief of maintenance during the iddah period quantified at the rate of Rs.6,000/-. However, regarding the reasonable and fair provision, it was held that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- will serve the interest of justice and hence, the revision of the husband was allowed in part.

4. Heard both sides and examined the records.

5. The only dispute now remains is the reasonable and fair provision to be paid to the revision petitioner herein. All other issues are now settled. The trial court, relying on the oral testimony of PW1 and all attending circumstances, held that the wife was entitled for a maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for three months of iddah period. It was held that, the future maintenance at that rate for the period of 15 years beginning from May 2006 limited to Rs. 2,00,000/- claimed by her was the reasonable and fair provision. However, this was not appreciated by the revisional court. It was held by the revisional court that, what is meant by the provision is not a life long payment. While fixing the amount of provision, the court will have to consider so many aspects such as the age of the lady claiming provision, the reason for divorce, the length of matrimony, the number and age of children born in the wedlock, the social and economic circumstances of the parties, the means of the respondent and also the prospects for a remarriage of the lady. It was noticed by the revisional court that the revision petitioner herein was aged 36 years, when she brought the claim under section 3 of the Act. The child was a female child aged 5 1/2 years at that time. The court held that there was no convincing evidence regarding the job or income of the revision petitioner. However, it was noticed that, the respondent herein was able bodied person without any physical ailment or infirmity and there was no reason to believe that he had some definite source of income. However, for not accepting the amount of reasonable and fair provision fixed by the court below, the reasoning of the revisional court was that, maintenance for the iddah period was a special provision to be paid to the divorced woman taking into consideration several factors, which cannot be at par to be taken for the purpose of quantifying the reasonable and fair provision. It was held that, if the monthly rate is adopted for quantifying the provision, it can only be 50% of the amount granted for iddah period. It was further held that, earlier all the disputes between the parties were settled in mediation and that the enti