The application of Article 137 of the Limitation Act to claims under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was affirmed, highlighting the need to assess the respondent's financial capacity before any maintenance ruling.

ORDER

Dated : 25^th February, 2026 The petitioner in M.C.4/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Cherthala who is also the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P. 9/2020 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying for setting aside Annexure-6 order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Alappuzha. The above M.C case was filed by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (in short, the Act of 1986)

2. The learned Magistrate dismissed the claim under Section 3 of the Act of 1986, mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the claim was barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The other ground was that the petitioner had executed an agreement with her husband at the time of pronouncement of talaq, whereby she had relinquished all her rights in connection with the divorce. In Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, relying upon the decision of this Court in Hassainar v. Raziya , 1993 2 KLT 805, it was argued that the claim made after nine years of the dissolution of marriage is barred by limitation. However the learned Sessions Judges found that the claim was made by the petitioner within a period of three years from the date of refusal by her husband to pay a reasonable and fair maintenance and hence, the claim is not barred by limitation. However, the learned Session Judge found that since the petitioner had relinquished her claim at the time of dissolution of marriage, she cannot raise a claim under of the Act of 1986. Further, the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned Magistrate found that the petitioner had not proved that her husband had sufficient means to pay the amount claimed by her. In the light of the above findings, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Petition.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court as per reference order dated

09.04.2025, suspected the validity of the decision of this court in Hassainar (supra) and directed the Registry to place the reference before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for an authoritative declaration of law by a Division Bench on the following question :

Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a claim under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce)

Act, 1996 as held in Hassainar v. Raziya , 1993 2 KLT 805 ?

4. Accordingly, the learned Division Bench so constituted considered the question referred before it elaborately and answered the reference in the affirmative, by affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge in Hassainar (supra), to the extent it holds that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply to the application for adjudication made under Section 3 of the Act of 1986. The Division Bench remitted back the matter to the single Judge for deciding the correctness of the finding of the Sessions Court that the petitioner had not proved that her husband had sufficient means to pay the amount claimed by her and to dispose of the Crl.M.C based on the finding of the Division Bench on the reference order. It was in the above context that this Crl.M.C again came up before this Bench.

5. In the light of the decision of the Session Judge in the Revision as well as the decision of the Division Bench on the reference order, now the picture is clear. The claim raised by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act of 1986 is not barred by limitation. There is also no merit in the claim raised by the respondent husband that he is not liable to pay reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to his wife on the ground that she had relinquished her right at the time of dissolution of the marriage. Therefore, now