Court reaffirmed the rights of a divorced Muslim woman under relevant statutory provisions, emphasizing financial assessment based on several factors.

O R D E R

The common order passed by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.R.P Nos.50/2018 and 55/2018 is under challenge in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the parties in those revision petitions. The aforesaid revision petitions arose out of the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kozhikode in M.C No.156/2014 filed by a divorced Muslim lady claiming various reliefs under the provisions of Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereafter referred as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereinafter in their capacities as petitioner and respondent as they appear in the proceedings before the Trial Court.

2. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:

(i) Money equivalent to mahr given at the time of marriage (ii) Iddat expenses Rs.1,00,000/-

(iii) Gold ornaments weighing 77 sovereigns or the money equivalent (iv) Money/cash Rs.15,00,000/- taken by respondent (v) Fair and reasonable provision Rs.2 Crore (vi) Maintenance of child Rs.2,40,000/-

(vii) Such other further entitlement in her capacity as a divorced Muslim woman

3. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner and four witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW5 and 15 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P10, P11 series, P12, P13 series, P14 series and P15 series. Five third party documents were marked as Exts.X1 to X5. From the part of the respondent, he and one witness were examined as DW1 and DW2.

4. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, and hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found that the petitioner was entitled for an amount of Rs.81,000/- as maintenance for iddat period and Rs.32,40,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision. All the other claims were disallowed.

5. The petitioner filed Crl.R.P No.55/2018 aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, disallowing the other reliefs sought for by her, and also the inadequacy of the amount fixed as maintenance for iddat period, and reasonable and fair provision.

6. The respondent filed Crl.R.P No.50/2018 contending that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for, and that the maintenance for iddat period and the reasonable and fair provision fixed by the learned Magistrate were excessive.

7. The learned Sessions Judge, after reappraisal of the entire evidence, found that there was absolutely no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, both the above revision petitions were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge upholding the findings of the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the aforesaid common order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner as well as the respondent are before this Court with these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

9. As regards the amount fixed by the learned Magistrate as maintenance for iddat period, and reasonable and fair provision, the contention of the petitioner is that the multiplier of 10 applied by the Trial Court was grossly inadequate, and that the Trial Court ought to have preferred the multiplier 18 instead of 10. The decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court inShaji Ahammed v. Saleena [2024 KHC 816] has been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the above said argument. But, it is not possible to apply the dictum inShaji Ahammed (supra), in the facts and circumstances of this case, which are at variance from the facts and circumstances of the reported decision cited above. InShaji Ahammed, it was held that, till the legislature m