Nazer Abdulla vs Sunitha

A. Hariprasad, J.—Petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").

Petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad in a revision filed against the trial judgment directing him to provide maintenance to the divorced wife under the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act").

Facts, in short, are thus:

Petitioner married the respondent as per the rites and rituals under the Islamic Law on 30.11.1986. After more than 19 years of marital life, petitioner pronounced talaq on 18.05.2006 severing the marital relationship. Two issues were born in the wedlock. After divorce, the respondent/wife approached the court below under the provisions of the Act claiming Rs. 25,000/- as cash and value of gold ornaments given at the time of marriage. Further, maintenance during the iddat period and reasonable and fair provision and maintenance were also claimed.

Court below allowed the respondent to realise a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and also the value of ten sovereigns of gold ornaments to a tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Rs. 9,000/- was allowed as maintenance during iddat, for three months and Rs. 3,00,000/- was allowed as reasonable and fair provision and maintenance. Aggrieved by that finding of the trial court, the petitioner took up the matter before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order passed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

I heard Mr. Siby, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Anila K., learned counsel for the respondent.

I have carefully perused the impugned order. Learned Sessions Judge has elaborately considered the oral evidence adduced by both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below committed a grave error in confirming the order of the trial court, which granted exorbitant amounts to the respondent. According to the learned counsel, the amount awarded is beyond the means of the petitioner. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is a person working abroad and earning fabulous amount. Besides, he is having income from landed property also.

Court below considered the rival contentions raised by the parties. As observed by the lower court, there is no dispute that the petitioner had divorced the respondent by pronouncing talaq. According to him, she was untruthful to him and had extramarital relationship. However, this contention is strongly denied by the learned counsel for the respondent. No material is produced to fortify this contention of the petitioner, except the information given to him by their son. In the absence of any reliable evidence on this point, I cannot find fault with the authorities below in finding that the divorced wife is entitled to get maintenance.

The revisional court had considered all the authorities on the point to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts awarded by the trial court as maintenance during iddat period and reasonable and fair provision and maintenance. This Court, by exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C., can interfere in the finding of the lower authority only if it is established that there is manifest injustice caused to him by wrong application of legal principles or complete misreading of evidence. Vexed questions of facts cannot be considered in this jurisdiction as it cannot be stated that jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is an appellate jurisdiction. On going through the order passed by the court below, I find no reason to interfere with the order because there is no illegality in the impugned order. Further, the court below has considered the status of the parties and paying capacity of the petitioner. The divorced woman (respondent-wife) was about 40 years at the relevant time. Fact that the chance of re-marriage of respondent is bleak was also considered by the court below. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

In the result, the petition is without any merit and hence it is dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.