The failure to discharge statutory obligations under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act mandates maintenance and fair provisions for divorced women.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod (for short 'the trial court') in M.C.No.37 of 2002 dated

30.03.2005.

2. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. The parties are Muslims and are governed by Muslim personal law. Their marriage was solemnized on 20.04.2000. According to the respondent, the petitioner divorced her by pronouncing talaq. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition before the trial court under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, 'Muslim Women Protection Act') as M.C.No.37 of 2002 claiming Rs.5,00,000/- towards reasonable and fair provisions for the future maintenance, Rs.18,000/- towards maintenance during the iddat period, Rs.105/- towards mahr and for return of 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner or its value. The trial court, after trial, allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as fair provisions for the future maintenance, Rs.12,000/- towards the maintenance during the iddat period, Rs.105/- towards mahr and Rs.2,34,000/- towards the value of the gold ornaments. This revision petition has been filed challenging the said order of the trial court.

3. Even though notice has been served to the respondent, there is no appearance. Since there was no representation for the petitioner, Adv.Safna P.S., was appointed as Amicus Curiae. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and perused the records.

4. The marriage is not in dispute. However, the petitioner has disputed the case of the respondent that he has divorced her by pronouncing talaq. According to the petitioner, the respondent is not a divorced woman and, as such, the petition under Section 3 of Muslim Women Protection Act is not maintainable. The definite case of the respondent is that the petitioner divorced her by pronouncing talaq and Ext.P1 talaqnama was sent to Adhur Juma Masjid, which received it on 13.04.2002. In order to prove the divorce, the respondent relies on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and Ext.P1 thalaqnama. The respondent herself gave evidence as PW1. PW2 is the brother of PW1. PW3 is the Secretary of Adhur Juma Masjid. PW1 deposed that the petitioner divorced her by pronouncement of talaq and sent Ext.P1 talaqnama to the Secretary of Adhur Juma Masjid, who was examined as PW3. PW1 further deposed that the talaqnama was written by the petitioner in his own handwriting. PW2 gave evidence that the petitioner divorced the respondent by pronouncing Talaq and sent talaqnama to the Secretary, Adhur Juma Masjid by registered post. PW2 further deposed that PW3 read Ext.P1 talaqnama in the Mosque after Juma prayer on Friday. He further deposed that his father obtained Ext.P1 talaqnama from the Mosque and handed over the same to the respondent. PW3 gave evidence that the petitioner married PW1 as per the customs and ceremonies prevailing in the Muslim Community. The relevant page showing the petitioner's marriage is marked as Ext.P3. He further deposed that the petitioner sent Ext.P1 talaqnama to him and he entrusted the same to the President, Jumayath Committee and read it in the Mosque after Juma prayer. The petitioner gave evidence as DW1. According to him, Ext.P1 is a concocted document. PW1 and PW2 asserted that the petitioner divorced PW1 and sent Ext.P1 talaqnama to PW3. PW3 clearly deposed that the petitioner sent Ext.P1 talaqnama in his address and on receipt of the same, he entrusted it with the Jumayath President. He also deposed that the President read Ext.P1 talaqnama after Juma prayer on Friday and handed over it to