Petitioner challenged High Court revision under Section 482 CrPC against orders granting divorced Muslim wife maintenance and fair provision under MWPDR Act. Bench dismissed appeal holding factual findings unchallengeable.
Petition dismissed with four months time granted to pay balance amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA,
1944
CRL.MC NO. 1717 OF 2020
ORDER IN CRRP 8/2018 OF SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA ORDER IN MC 48/2016 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KALEPETTA PETITIONERS/REVISION PETITIONER:
ALI KADAVANDI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KUNJII MUHAMMED HAJI, KADAVANDI HOUSE, CHAPPANGADI POST, PONMALA VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT:
2 SHAMEELA NASURATH,D/O.KOYA MASTER, MANAKODAN HOUSE, MEPPADI POST, NEAR G.H.S. SCHOOL, MEPPADI, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD-673577.
BY ADVS.SMT.M.B.SHYNI
SRI.DEEPAK RAJ
SRI C N PRABHAKARAN -SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.1717/2020
-:2:-
O R D E R
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2022
This Crl.M.C has been filed challenging the order passed by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta in M.C.No.48/2016 dated 21.8.2018 and the order passed by the Court of Sessions, Kalpetta in Crl.R.P.No.8/2018 dated 18.12.2019.
Crl.M.C.No.1717/2020
-:3:-
reasonable and fair provision for future and ₹75,000/- towards maintenance for the iddat period. The petitioner challenged the said order in revision before the Sessions Court, Kalpetta which ended in dismissal.
a Higher Secondary School. Thus, it is evident that both the
Crl.M.C.No.1717/2020
-:4:-
petitioner and the 2nd respondent are hailing from financially settled families and their standard of living are very high. The petitioner has admitted that he was drawing a monthly salary of ₹45,000/-. The court below reckoned the said salary while quantifying the reasonable and fair provision entitled for the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in Hussain Punathil v. Fathima & Another (2013 (1) KLJ 852) submitted that the status of the parties as on the date of the divorce has to be considered for ordering fair and reasonable provision to the divorced wife and the status and financial position of the husband as on the date of the disposal of the petition cannot be the criteria to fix the fair and reasonable provision. The counsel submitted that the salary of the petitioner as on the date of the divorce was not taken into consideration by the court. As stated already, the petitioner himself has admitted that his monthly salary was ₹45,000/-. No other piece of paper has been adduced by the petitioner to prove his monthly salary as on the date of divorce. Considering the salary of the petitioner, the need of the
Crl.M.C.No.1717/2020
-:5:-
wife and the status of the parties, the court below found that ₹25,000/- per month would be required to meet the monthly requirements of the 2nd respondent. This Court in Ahammed v. Aysha [1990 (1) KLT 172] applied the principle of 5 years purchase value for fixing the quantum payable under the head “reasonable and fair provision of maintenance”. However, thereafter, in Kunhi Mohammed v. A.P.Sajitha & Another [2014 (1) KLT 43], this Court held that 5 years multiplier was fixed in Ahammed's case (supra) as early as in 1990 and it was high time to increase the multiplier by the passage of time. Accordingly, ten years purchase value was adopted. The said finding was arrived at observing that fall of money value has to be taken into consideration while fixing the reasonable and fair provision of maintenance. The learned Magistrate has taken only 5 years as multiplier in this case.
the status of the parties, the capacity of the petitioner and also all other attendant circumstances fixed the fair and reasonable provision as ₹15,00,000/- and the maintenance for the iddat
Crl.M.C.No.1717/2020
-:6:-
period as ₹75,000/-. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the said finding of law. The said factual finding cannot be interfered under the exercise of jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The impugned order and judgment do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the amount awarded. The learned counsel prays four months' time to pay the balance. Accordingly four months' time is granted.
sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
Crl.M.C.No.1717/2020
-:7:-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1717/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.8.2018 IN M.C.NO.48/16 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPATTA, WAYANAD. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2019 IN CRL.R.P.NO.8/18 ON THE FILES OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA, WAYANAD.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of reasonable and fair provision fixed by the Magistrate court was arbitrary or illegal given the financial status of the parties?
Whether the multiplier used by the Magistrate court for calculating reasonable and fair provision was legally correct?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suhadath v. ShihabDistinguished¶28
Suhadath v. Shihab [2022 (6) KLT 581]
Hussain Punathil v. Fathima & AnotherDistinguished¶31
Hussain Punathil v. Fathima & Another (2013 (1) KLJ 852)
Ahammed v. AyshaDistinguished¶34
Ahammed v. Aysha [1990 (1) KLT 172]
Kunhi Mohammed v. A.P.Sajitha & AnotherDistinguished¶34
Kunhi Mohammed v. A.P.Sajitha & Another [2014 (1) KLT 43]
ALI KADAVANDI
STATE OF KERALA
SHAMEELA NASURATH
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
