Parties' Standard Of Living 'Very High': Kerala HC Upholds ₹31.6 Lakh Compensation U/S 3 Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act

The Kerala High Court on Friday upheld the Magistrate Court's order granting an amount of Rs. 31,68,000/- as maintenance to a divorced woman under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the parties hail from financially strong backgrounds and have a "very high" standard of living. It reiterated, 

"It is trite that the court while fixing the reasonable and fair provision of maintenance to be paid to a divorced woman shall keep in view the status of parties, capacity of the former husband to pay maintenance and also other attendant circumstances. The amount so fixed must be enough to take care of the future needs of a woman in the prevailing socio-economic...It has come out in evidence that both the petitioner and the 1st respondent are hailing from very financially well settled families and their standard of living was very high." 

The Petitioner herein was the lawfully wedded wife of the 1st respondent, and the couple also had a child born out of wedlock. The 1st respondent was employed at Doha, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the petitioner and their child also resided with him there. 1st respondent then divorced the petitioner by pronouncing talaq on December 15, 2013. The petitioner thus filed a petition before the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam (court below), under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. She sought Rs.1 crore towards reasonable and fair provision for the future, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards maintenance for iddat period, for return of 70 grams of gold given as mahr, and for return of Rs. 1,41,680/- as the value of 56 grams of gold allegedly given to her by her parents and taken away by her husband. 

Before the Magistrate Court, the salary drawn by the 1st respondent was disputed by him, and he claimed to be drawing only Rs.60,000 as salary. However, the Magistrate found that the petitioner had successfully established that the 1st respondent had indeed been receiving a salary of Rs. 2 Lakh from the evidence adduced. The Magistrate Court thus found that the petitioner and her son required at least Rs. 33,000/- per month for their livelihood, and reckoning the amount for a period of 8 years, granted Rs. 31,68,000/- as fair and reasonable provision and maintenance under Section 3 of the Act of 1986. 

The Additional Sessions Judge, on a challenge to the Magistrate's Order by the 1st respondent herein, however, set aside the same, and remanded the case to the Magistrate for fresh consideration. Since the 1st respondent had produced a salary certificate allegedly issued by his employer, the matter was remanded so as to grant him an opportunity to prove the same. It is against the same that the instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner wife. 

The Court found that the Magistrate had rightly arrived at the amount after taking into account the materials on record. It was noted by the Court that as against the positive evidence of the petitioner regarding the salary of the 1st respondent, no such evidence had been adduced by him to prove the contrary. Rather, his father and power of attorney holder who had no direct knowledge about his job and income gave evidence. The Court noted that the 1st respondent did not produce the salary certificate nor did he even enter the box. It was only at a later stage that he produced a salary certificate before the Sessions Court and sought a remand.

The Court found that the amount was arrived at by the Magistrate taking into account the day to day expenditure required for the petitioner and the child for food, clothing, shelter, and so on.

It also paid strong attention to the parties' family background. As per the evidence adduced, petitioner is a well qualified lady possessing M.Sc Degree in Chemistry, M.Tech in Industrial Catalysis and B.Ed in Physical Science. She was enrolled as a junior research fellow at CUSAT and also selected for a project work at BARC, Mumbai during 2008-2009. Her father is a reputed B class contractor of Public Works Department and brother and sisters are well settled. The respondent husband was working as a lab technician in Red Crescent Workers' Health Centre, Sanayya, Doha. His father is a construction contractor and a political leader.

"The said amount was arrived by the learned Magistrate on a rational basis. The petitioner is very young. The court below while quantifying the reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance has taken 8 years as the multiplier. It appears to be absolutely reasonable", Court observed. 

It further noted that the Additional Sessions Judge had been persuaded by a salary certificate produced by the 1st respondent before it at a belated stage. 

"The learned Additional Sessions Judge while exercising the power u/s 397 of Cr.P.C ought not have upset the said finding of fact. I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence on record. Hence, the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Court is vitiated by illegality".

The Court thus set aside the Additional Sessions Court's order and restored the order of the Magistrate. 

The petitioner in the instant case was represented by Advocate A. Rajasimhan. Public Prosecutor Sangeetha Raj, and Advocate T.M. Abdul Latheef appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Case Title: Suhadath K.K. v. Shihab K.B. & Anr. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 606

Click Here To Read/Download The Order