The court affirmed a divorced Muslim woman's statutory right to maintenance under the Act, emphasizing that existing orders under Section 125 Cr.P.C. do not extinguish this right, and set a reasonable maintenance amount based on the husband's capacity to pay.

ORDER

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2024

These revision petitions are filed against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam, against the order dated 18.11.2015 in MC. No.11 of 2014, filed under Section 3 (1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (Act of 1986). Crl.R.P. No.331 of 2016 was filed by the divorced wife, while Crl R.P. No.789 of 2017 was filed by the respondent husband. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court).

2. The petitioner is the divorced wife of the respondent. Two children were born in that wedlock. Till the year 2010, they were living together as husband and wife, without any serious issues. The respondent was employed in Gulf, during the period from 1976 to 2010. During the said period, he had sent various amounts to the wife and she had expended the same, to purchase immovable property, vehicles etc. and also disposed of some of them. The case of the respondent is that his entire earnings from Gulf for the past 34 years, till 2010 was misappropriated by the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, she utilised the money only as directed by the respondent. In that respect, he had filed O.P. No.268 of 2012 before the Family Court and it was decreed in-part. The wife also filed OP No.1405 of 2010 before the Family Court, claiming return of gold and money and the said OP was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the above decrees in OP. Nos.268 of 2012 and 1405 of 2010, they have also preferred Mat. Appeal No.42 of 2014 and 244 of 2014 and those appeals are pending before this Court. In MC. No.220 of 2010 filed under S.125 Cr.P.C., the Family Court awarded maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.1,500/-per month.

3. While so, the respondent returned from Gulf and pronounced Talaq on 13.7.2010. According to the petitioner, she was expelled from the matrimonial home on 9.7.2010, suspecting her chastity. Thereafter, she preferred the present MC.11 of 2014 before the Magistrate, under Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1986, claiming maintenance @Rs.15,000/- for three months Iddat period and a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision for her future maintenance.

4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and RWs 1 to 4 and documentary evidence Exhibits P1 to P15 and D1 to D17. After evaluating the available evidence, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order, awarding maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of three months during the Iddat period and a sum of Rs.4,32,000/-(maintenance @4000/- for 9 years) towards reasonable and fair provision for her future maintenance, with interest @6% per annum, which is impugned by both parties.

5. According to the respondent, since his entire earnings from Gulf during the period from 1976 to 2010, including articles, gold ornaments, vehicles and other properties entrusted with the petitioner were misappropriated by her, he is not liable to pay any further amount to the petitioner, towards maintenance. He would also contend that, he has been regularly paying maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs.1500/-, as ordered in MC 220/2010. Awarding interest on the amount of maintenance was also challenged.

6. Now, the point that arises for consideration are the following:

1) Whether a claim under S.3(1) of Act of 1986 is maintainable during the pendency of an order under S.125 of Cr.P.C.?

2) Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate under S.3(1) of Act of 1986 is reasonable and fair?

3) Whether the order for payment of interest on the amount of maintenance, allowable?

7. Heard Sri. P. Shamsudin, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/wife and Sri.. P.M. Abdul Jaleel, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband.

8. The point: The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was on 31.8.1981. They lived together as husband and wife till the respondent pronounced Ta