Kerala High Court
Sainudheen P.P vs Rubeena M.A on 30 October, 2025
2025:KER:81783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO.4891 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2020 IN CRl.R.P.NO.50 OF
2013 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.03.2013 IN MC NO.75 OF
2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANNUR
PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SAINUDHEEN P.P.
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA, LOTUS VILLA,
AZHIKODE AMSOM DESOM, FORT ROAD,
P.O. AZHIKODE, KANNUR - 670 009
BY ADV.
SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
1 RUBEENA M.A.
D/O. KUNHAMU, AGED 35 YEARS, KURUKKAN KALIYATH HOUSE,
CHEMMARASSERIPPARA, P.O. AZHIKODE, KANNUR - 670 009
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031
BY ADV.
SMT.C.LEENA
SRI.SANAL P. RAJ, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:81783
Crl.M.C.No.4891 of 2020
-2-
G. GIRISH, J.
-----------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.4891 of 2020
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2025
ORDER
The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court - II, Kannur, and the Additional Sessions Court - IV, Thalassery,
granting reliefs under Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women [Protection
of Rights on Divorce] Act, 1986, to the 1st respondent, are under
challenge in this Crl.M.C., filed at the instance of the former husband
of the 1st respondent.
2. The 1st respondent approached the learned Magistrate by
filing M.C.No.75 of 2010 seeking various reliefs including reasonable
and fair provision for future period, maintenance during Iddah period
and also for maintenance for the child. Before the learned
Magistrate, the 1st respondent tendered evidence as PW1, in addition
to the oral evidence tendered by another witness as PW2. Two
documents were marked as Exts.P1 and P2 from the part of the 1st
respondent. The revision petitioner did not adduce any oral
2025:KER:81783
evidence. However, Ext.D1 series were marked as documents from
his part. After the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned
Magistrate found that the 1st respondent was entitled to the reliefs
sought for in the said petition. Accordingly, an amount of
Rs.24,000/- was ordered to be paid as maintenance for the child and
an amount of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance during the Iddah period.
The learned Magistrate calculated the reasonable and fair provision
of maintenance for future period at Rs.3,36,000/- by applying the
multiplier of seven years upon the amount of Rs.4,000/- fixed as the
amount to be paid for a month. Though the matter was challenged
in revision before the Additional Sessions Court - IV, Thalassery, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the
learned Magistrate and upheld the verdict of the Trial Court, while
dismissing the revision. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent
verdicts of the courts below, that the petitioner is here with this
Crl.M.C. filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2025:KER:81783
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor
representing the State of Kerala.
4. The main challenge raised by the petitioner before the
courts below was that he was not bound to pay any amount to the
1st respondent, since there was no valid talaq. The aforesaid
contention of the petitioner was repelled by both courts by relying
on the registered letter sent by the petitioner to the 1st respondent
intimating the talaq effected by him. The courts below also dealt
with the efforts of mediation made at the instance of relatives and
the Jama-at concerned, in connection with the aforesaid talaq. The
concurrent findings of the courts below in the above matter is not
liable to be interfered with by this Court in this proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
Trial Court applied the multiplier as seven years on the basis of the
conclusion that there is no chance for the 1st respondent getting
married again, and that, contrary to the aforesaid conclusion, the 1st
2025:KER:81783
respondent had remarried on 15.05.2017 as revealed by Annexure
A4 - certificate of marriage. Thus, it is contended that the calculation
made by the Trial Court by applying the multiplier as seven is
patently wrong. It is also pointed out that the amount of Rs.4,000/-
fixed as the maintenance amount for a month was exorbitant. The
learned counsel for the 1st respondent pointed out that the question
whether there are chances of the lady getting remarried is of no
relevance, while fixing the amounts due to a divorced muslim lady
under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. It is also submitted that
the amount of Rs.4,000/- fixed for a month, cannot be said to be an
exorbitant amount.
6. It could be seen from the discussions made by the Trial
Court in paragraph 22 of the impugned order that the statement
tendered by the 1st respondent before the Trial Court during her
examination as PW1 that, she is not interested in getting married
again, was taken into account by the Trial Court for arriving at a
finding as to the exact amount to be paid to her as reasonable and
fair provision for future maintenance. Obviously, it is on the basis of
2025:KER:81783
the aforesaid assumption about the impossibility of the 1st
respondent marrying again, that the Trial Court decided to apply the
multiplier for seven years for fixing the quantum of maintenance
amount as reasonable and fair provision. It is true that the 1st
respondent might not be under the expectation of contracting a
marriage in future, while the petitioner resorted to talaq in the year
2010. However, it is revealed from Annexure A4 - certificate of
marriage that she had remarried on 15.05.2017. In view of the
aforesaid remarriage, it could be said that from the date of
remarriage onwards, her husband is having the responsibility to take
care of her maintenance. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the period of seven
years fixed by the courts below, is liable to be modified as a period
of six years and six months, while calculating the amount due to the
1st respondent as reasonable and fair provision for maintenance.
When calculated in the above manner, the amount to which she is
entitled would be Rs.3,12,000/-. The argument that the amount of
Rs.4,000/- fixed as the maintenance for a month is exorbitant,
2025:KER:81783
cannot be accepted in view of the price index and cost of living
prevailing during the relevant period. Therefore, the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court is liable to be modified to that limited
extent.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. stands disposed of as follows:
(i) The findings of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court - II, Kannur, in the order dated
30.03.2013 in M.C.No.75 of 2010, granting various reliefs
to the petitioner in that MC under the provisions of the
Muslim Women [Protection of Rights on Divorce] Act,
1986, are upheld except for the amount fixed as
reasonable and fair provision for maintenance for the
future period.
(ii) The amount of Rs.3,36,000/- fixed by the Trial
Court as reasonable and fair provision for maintenance for
future period is modified as Rs.3,12,000/- [Rupees Three
Lakh Twelve Thousand only].
2025:KER:81783
(iii) The amount, if any, already deposited by the
petitioner shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount of
Rs.3,12,000/-.
(iv) The petitioner shall make payment of the
balance amount, within a period of two months from
today.
The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order, along with the
case records, to the Trial Court for enforcement in accordance with
the aforesaid directions.
Sd/-
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
ded/30.10.2025
2025:KER:81783
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C. 75/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATECOURT,NO. II,
KANNUR DATED 30.03.2013.
ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE CORRECTED ORDER IN M.C. 75/2010
DATED 12.11.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NO. II, KANNUR.
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2020
IN CRL. R.P. 50/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NO. IV, THALASSERY.
ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DATED
03.10.2020 OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN ISSUED FROM
THE REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES, AZHIKODE GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE RESIDENCE PERMIT ISSUED FROM UAE AND
ATTACHED TO THE PASSPORT BEARING NO. A8610258
ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
