Kerala High Court
Thouseef Mohammed vs State Of Kerala on 15 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 388 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2023 IN
MC NO.41 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS-I,KANJIRAPPALLY
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
THOUSEEF MOHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O. IRSHAD, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THOTTUMUGHAM, 1ST MILE, KANJIRAPPALLY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686507.
BY ADVS.
T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
MANJULA NAIR
REVATHY M.A.
GREESHMA T.G.
SNEHA BRIGIT PRINCE
RESPONDENTS/STATE, PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
2 ANVARA PARVEEN S, AGED 29, D/O P.K.SHAJI,
RESIDING AT "HAPPY HOME APARTMENTS", FLAT
NO.9, ANAKKALLU, KANJIRAPPALLY, PIN - 686508.
3 P.Y. IRSHAD, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. YOOSUF,
PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTUMUGHAM, 1ST MILE,
KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN- 686507.
4 SALMA, AGED 60 YEARS, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THOTTUMUGHAM, 1ST MILE, KANJJIRAPPALLY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN - 686507.
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RENJIT GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2024, THE COURT ON 15.10.2024
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:76401
Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 2
"C.R"
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.R.P.No.388 of 2024
================================
Dated the 15th day of October, 2024
ORDER
1st respondent in M.C.No.41/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kanjirappally, has filed this Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order passed in the above M.C along with M.C.No.77/2018 and 42/2020, whereby the learned Magistrate allowed petition filed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (`MWPRD Act' for short) granting Rs.90,000/- (@ 30,000 per month) as maintenance for the iddat period and also Rs.28,40,000/- as fair and reasonable provision to the divorced wife of the revision petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were served with notice, they didn't appear. The 1 st 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 3 respondent is State of Kerala, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. While assailing the order granting reliefs set forth above, it is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the order impugned is absolutely illegal, irregular and arbitrary for the reasons stated in Ground B of this Revision Petition that, admittedly the petitioner in the MC had left the company of the husband on 17.08.2018, the first Thalakku was pronounced on 29.12.2019 and the last one on 07.03.2020. The 2 nd respondent herein (the petitioner in MC) got remarried on 09.05.2022, that too, during pendency of the MC. In view of the above admitted facts, the scope of enquiry under S.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is limited to the maintenance payable by the husband during the period of iddat and the reasonable and fair provision for her during the period from 7.3.2020 (the date of Talaq) and till the date of remarriage (9.5.2022) whereas in the instant case the learned Magistrate has embarked on absolutely erroneous conclusions and allowed the claims of the petitioner wife, ignoring her re-marriage and without being supported by any evidence regarding the income of her husband and the nature of life she had enjoyed in her matrimonial home.
2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 4
4. It is argued further that while examining the divorced wife as PW1, she had given evidence that after the pronouncement of talaq, she married another man and he is a native of Thrissur, doing business. But without support of any evidence that the revision petitioner is a man earning fairly, huge amount was granted by the impugned order and thus the same is erroneous. On these grounds, the learned counsel sought for interference in the order.
5. In this matter, the fact of divorce effected by the revision petitioner by pronouncing talaq-ahsan is not in dispute. The date of the first ta.laq was on 29.12.2019 and the third one was on 07.03.2020. The wife of the revision petitioner claimed Rs.2 crores as fair and reasonable provision for her and also claimed Rs.50,000/- each towards maintenance for the iddat period. As far as relief (c) and (d) sought for in the M.C, the learned Magistrate relegated the reliefs to be claimed before the Family Court, recording the submission in this regard at the instance of the divorced wife.
6. Coming to grant of Rs.30,000/- each as maintenance for 3 months, viz., a total sum of Rs.90,000/-, the learned Magistrate considered the relevant decisions on this point and in consideration of the ratio therein, 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 5 the learned Magistrate found that the 1 st respondent would earn at least Rs.10 lakh per month and the standard of living for a person having such an income, Rs.20,000/- each per month would be necessary for food, clothing and medicine. Further Rs.10,000/- would be necessary for conveyance and for other unforeseen expenses. Accordingly, Rs.30,000/- was granted for fair and reasonable provision for the iddat period. The learned Magistrate also, after fixing the monthly income, granted the other relief as stated in paragraph 20 of the impugned order as under:
"20. It is further to be noted that due to the sudden pronouncement of talaq by R1, the petitioner was left without a marital life an uncertain period till she got remarried after about 28 months. She had to marry another divorcee and having a child in his former marriage. Petitioner has to bear the responsibility of looking after the said child also. The petitioner gave birth to two children of R1 and has spent almost 7 (seven) years of her life with R1 before unilaterally divorced by him.
Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that a quantified amount of Rs.10 Lakh would only be just and reasonable amount for the petitioner to be paid by R1 in turn. But considering the subsequent event of remarriage of the petitioner after 28 months of divorce. I am of the view that the said amount of Rs.10 lakh can be reduced to Rs.6 Lakh. Considering that the petitioner got remarried as above mentioned, her right to get the fair and reasonable provision, apart from the above mentioned amount of Rs.6 Lakh, can be restricted to the period ending with her marriage, which 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 6 would thus come to Rs.22,40,000/-. Upon totalling the above mentioned amount, it would come to Rs.28,40,000/-. Thus, according to my considered view, petitioner is entitled to get a total amount of Rs.28,40,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Forty Thousand only) as fair and reasonable provision from R1. Hence, point is answered in favour of the petitioner to that extent."
7. [2024 KLT OnLine 2180 : MANU/KE/2870/2024], Shaji S.Ahammed v. Saleena & anr., this Court raised the following questions in paragraph 13 as under:
"(1) What is the period for which a divorced Muslim wife is entitled to get reasonable and fair provision and maintenance ?
(2) What are the essentials to be considered while granting a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance?
(3) What is the basis on which reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be calculated in terms of Section 3 of the Act, 1986 ?"
8. While answering the questions this Court observed in paragraphs 14 to 22 as under:
"14. In this connection it is relevant to refer Section 3 of the Act, 1986 as under:
"3. Mahr or other properties of Muslim woman to be given to her at the time of divorce:--
2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 7 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a divorced woman shall be entitled to--
(a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband.
(b) where she herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children;
(c) an amount equal to the sum of mahr or dower agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage or at any time thereafter according to Muslim law; and
(d) all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after the marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends. (2) Where a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance or the amount of mahr or dower due has not been made or paid or the properties referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) have not been delivered to a divorced woman on her divorce, she or any one duly authorised by her may, on her behalf, make an application to a Magistrate for an order for payment of such provision and maintenance, mahr or dower or the delivery of properties, as the case may be. (3) Where an application has been made under sub-section (2) by a divorced woman, the Magistrate may, if he is satisfied that --
(a) her husband having sufficient means, has failed or neglected to make or pay her within the iddat period a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for her and the children; or
(b) the amount equal to the sum of mahr or dower has not been paid or that the properties referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) have not been delivered to her.
2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 8 make an order, within one month of the date of the filing of the application, directing her former husband to pay such reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to the divorced woman as he may determine as fit and proper having regard to the needs of the divorced woman, the standard of life enjoyed by her during her marriage and the means of her former husband or, as the case may be, for the payment of such mahr or dower or the delivery of such properties referred to in clause (d) of sub- section (1) to the divorced woman:
Provided that if the Magistrate finds it impracticable to dispose of the application within the said period, he may, for reasons to be recorded by him, dispose of the application after the said period. (4) If any person against whom an order has been made under sub-section (3) fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, the Magistrate may issue a warrant for levying the amount of maintenance or mahr or dower due in the manner provided for levying fines under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and may sentence such person, for the whole or part of any amount remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or until payment if sooner made, subject to such person being heard in defence and the said sentence being imposed according to the provisions of the said Code."
15. Going by the statutory provisions, Section 3(1)(a) provides that a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband and Section 3(1)(b) provides that where she herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective date of birth of such children.
2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 9
16. In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and others [1985 KLT OnLine 1235(SC) : (1985) 2 SCC 556 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 245], the Apex Court held that, if the divorced wife is unable to maintain herself before the iddat period, the husband should provide her maintenance . But when she is unable to maintain herself after the period of iddat, she is entitled to seek remedy under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Similarly when the divorced wife herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children in terms of Section 3(1) of Act, 1986. But later in the decision reported in [2001 (3) KLT 651 (SC) :
(2001) 7 SCC 740 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 266], Danial Latifi v. Union of India, the Apex Court considered the impact of the Act, 1986 and concluded the legal position in paragraph 36 as under:
"21. It is imperative to acknowledge that the enactment of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "FCA 1984") had excluded the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C 1973, of which Section 125 is a part, wherein a Family Court had been established for the concerned area or jurisdiction. After the enactment of FCA 1984, a situation arose where a divorced Muslim woman moved a Family Court under Section 125 of CrPC 1973, and a similar circumstance was dealt in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015(2) KLT SN 78 (C.No.89) SC : (2015) 5 SCC 705] in light of the question of law at hand. Herein, while relying on the earlier mentioned judgments of this Court, it observed that the concerned Family Court had rightly, and without a shadow of a doubt, held that Section 125 of CrPC 1973 would be applicable. The relevant paragraph number 09 is 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 10 reproduced below:
"9. First of all, we intend to deal with the applicability of Section 125 CrPC to a Muslim woman who has been divorced. In Shamim Bano v. Asraf Khan (2014 (2) KLT SN 56 (C.No.74) SC : (2014) 12 SCC 636 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 145 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 162, this Court after referring to the Constitution Bench decisions in Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 651 (SC) : (2001) 7 SCC 740 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 266) and Khatoon Nisa v. State of U.P (Khatoon Nisa v. State of U.P, [2002 (2) KLT OnLine 1046 (SC) : (2014) 12 SCC 646 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 155 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 170) had opined as follows: (Shamim Bano case (2014 (2) KLT SN 56 (C.No.74) SC : (2014) 12 SCC 636 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 145 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri)
162), SCC p.644, paras 13-14) "13. The aforesaid principle clearly lays down that even after an application has been filed under the provisions of the Act, the Magistrate under the Act has the power to grant maintenance in favour of a divorced Muslim woman and the parameters and the considerations are the same as stipulated in Section 125 of the Code.
We may note that while taking note of the factual score to the effect that the plea of divorce was not accepted by the Magistrate which was upheld by the High Court, the Constitution Bench (2001 (3) KLT 651 (SC) : (2001) 7 SCC 740 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 266) opined that as the Magistrate could exercise power under Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance in favour of a divorced Muslim woman under the Act, the order did not warrant any interference. Thus, the emphasis was laid on the retention of the power by the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code and the effect of ultimate consequence.
14. Slightly recently, in Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan (2009 (4) KLT SN 102 (C.No.100) SC : (2010) 1 SCC 666 : (2010) 1 SCC 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 11 (Civ) 216 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 873), a two-Judge Bench, placing reliance on Danial Latifi (2001 (3) KLT 651 (SC) : (2001) 7 SCC 740 :
(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 266), has reuled that : (Shabana Bano case (2009 (4) KLT SN 102 (C.No.100) SC : (2010) 1 SCC 666 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 216 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 873, SCC p.672, para.21) "21. The appellant's petition under Section 125 CrPC would be maintainable before the Family Court as long as the appellant does not remarry. The amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 CrPC cannot be restricted for the iddat period only.' Though the aforesaid decision was rendered interpreting Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, yet the principle stated therein would be applicable, for the same is in consonance with the principle stated by the Constitution Bench in Khatoon Nisa (Khatoon Nisa v. State of U.P., 2002 (2) KLT OnLine 1046 (SC) : (2014) 12 SCC 646 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 155 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 170).' In view of the aforesaid dictum, there can be no shadow of doubt that Section 125 CrPC has been rightly held to be applicable by the learned Family Judge."
17. In the decision in Mohd. Abdul Samad's case (supra), the Apex Court held that apart from the option of filing petition under Section 3 of the Act, 1986, there is a discretion available to a divorced Muslim wife to opt for remedy under Section 125 of Cr.P.C as well. Thus it appears that even though as per Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, 1986, reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be paid to the divorced wife was provided within the iddat period by her former husband, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Danial Latifi's case (supra), the said amount shall stand extended beyond the iddat period in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, a Muslim divorced woman is entitled to get reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for her future not only during 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 12 the iddat period, but would extend beyond the iddat period till she re-marries and the same is not confined to the iddat period alone. The first question answered thus.
18. Coming to the second question, it has been consistently held that while fixing reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be paid to the divorced woman, the Court shall keep in view the status of the parties, capacity and ability of the former husband to pay maintenance and all such other attendant circumstances. The provisions contained in Act 1986 in no uncertain terms mandate that a divorced Muslim woman should be provided with fair and reasonable provision and maintenance by her former husband. He shall also pay maintenance during `iddat' period, Mahar, etc. and shall return the other properties given to her at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends. There is no escape route for the former husband to extricate himself out of the statutory liability by taking recourse to a precious plea that he had paid the `customary dues' to his former wife . The payment must be such that it takes care of the future needs of the woman in the prevailing socio economic scenario. The words `reasonable and fair provision and maintenance' shall not be rendered illusory or meaningless.
19. In fact, reasonable and fair provision and maintenance entitled by Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, 1986, is nothing but the amount required for the divorced wife to maintain herself, in juxtaposition with the status of the parties' capacity, income, assets, ability of the former husband and the entire attendant circumstances. Similarly, when the divorced wife herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce also, the said amount is entitled to by the divorced wife for the welfare of the children from the 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 13 respective birth date of such children in terms of Section 3(1) of Act, 1986. The second question is answered thus.
20. Adverting to the third question, there is no straitjacket formula available either in the statutory provision or by other means to lock in a methodology to work out reasonable and fair provision and maintenance.
21. In this connection calculation assumes significance. In the decision reported in [2017 (5) KHC 350], National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, while dealing with the multiplier to be applied for calculating loss of income, approved the multiplier fixed by the Apex Court in the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [2009 (6) SCC 121]. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), after discussing the schedule of multiplier attached under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (prior to the amendment) along with the multiplier fixed by the Apex Court in other cases and held in paragraph 21 as under:
"21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
22. Since Act, 1986 doesn't provide how reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be calculated, in order to fill up the legislative vacuum, till the 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 14 legislature makes the calculation procedure with certainty by prescription, I am of the view that the multiplier to calculate loss of income in motor accident cases fixed in Sarla Verma's case (supra) followed by the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) can be followed as a guideline, while fixing the reasonable and fair provision and maintenance under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, 1986 after fixing the monthly sum entitled by the divorced wife in accordance with the status, capacity, income, assets and ability of the former husband and other attendant circumstances. The multiplier is as under:
Age of the deceased Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Upto 15 yrs 15 to 20 yrs. 18 21 to 25 yrs. 18 26 to 30 yrs. 17 31 to 35 yrs. 16 36 to 40 yrs. 15 41 to 45 yrs. 14 46 to 50 yrs. 13 51 to 55 yrs. 11 56 to 60 yrs. 09 61 to 65 yrs. 07 Above 65 yrs. 05
9. Here the crucial question arises for consideration is; whether after re-marriage also the wife is entitled to get fair and reasonable maintenance? In paragraph 20 of the order impugned, the learned Magistrate 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 15 considered the remarriage of the petitioner and also her responsibility to look after the children born to her in her second marriage also.
10. On reading the calculation stated in paragraph 20 of the order impugned, initially Rs.10 lakh was arrived at to be paid by the revision petitioner in return and the said amount was reduced to Rs.6 lakh considering the remarriage of the wife. Thus total sum of Rs.28,40,000/-
is granted towards fair and reasonable provision to the divorced wife. Relying on the decision in Kunhi Muhammad v. A.P Sajitha and Anr. [2013 KHC 786], this Court has observed that multiplier of 10 years can be taken while fixing the quantum of fair and reasonable provision. In this case, even taking into consideration that R1 earns atleast Rs.5 lakh per month and further considering the standard of living of the parties, I am of the view that Rs.80,000/- per month would only be just and proper amount for the petitioner towards a decent life with all the amenities and facilities which she and the 1st respondent used to enjoy during their marital life.
It is further to be noted that due to the sudden pronouncement of talaq by the 1st respondent, petitioner was left without a marital life to an uncertain period till she got remarried after about 28 months. She had to 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 16 marry another divorcee and having a child in his former marriage. Petitioner has to bear the responsibility of looking after the said child also. The petitioner gave birth to two children of R1 and has spent almost 7 (seven) years of her life with R1 before unilaterally divorced by him. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that a quantified amount of Rs.10 lakh would only be just and reasonable amount for the petitioner to be paid by R1 in return. But considering the subsequent event of remarriage of the petitioner after 28 months of divorce, I am of the view that the said amount of Rs.10 lakh can be reduced to Rs.6 lakh. Considering that the petitioner got remarried as above mentioned, her right to get the fair and reasonable provision, apart from the above mentioned amount of Rs.6 lakh, can be restricted to the period ending with her remarriage, which would thus come to Rs.22,40,000/-. Upon totalling the above mentioned amount, it would come to Rs.28,40,000/-. Thus, according to my considered view, petitioner is entitled to get a total amount of Rs.28,40,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Forty Thousand Only) as fair and reasonable provision from R1. Hence, point is answered in favour of the petitioner to that extent.
2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 17 While taking Rs.10 lakh as the income, the trial court found that no documentary evidence regarding the income of the respondent let in. But the trial court taken note of the fact that the petitioner did not deny specifically any of the averments in the petition regarding the income stating that at the time of marriage PW1 was given 130 sovereigns of gold ornaments, a four wheeler worth Rs.10 lakh, as both parties hail from upper middle class family and enjoyed almost all the modern amenities and facilities of the society. Further the trial court taken note of the fact that the 1st respondent would get Rs.10 lakh per month from his business at Nagarcoil.
11. Having considered the matters relied on by the trial court to fix Rs.10 lakh as the monthly income of the 1 st respondent, in fact the same is not supported by any documentary evidence. Therefore, I am of the view that the income can be reduced to Rs.5 lakh per month. As found by the trial court, the wife subjected to sterilisation and she has bestowed with the duty of looking after the child of the second husband also. In view of the above, the fair and reasonable provisions can be recalculated. Considering the income of the revision petitioner as Rs.5 lakh per month, 2024:KER:76401 Crl.R.P.No.388/2024 18 Rs.50,000/- per month can be fixed as the monthly amount for fair and reasonable provision for maintenance.
12. It is true that this Court held in Shaji S.Ahammed v. Saleena & anr. (supra), though the multiplier in Sarla Verma's case could be applied to fix the quantum of fair and reasonable provision. But when there was remarriage, the wife is entitled to get fair and reasonable provision of maintenance during the actual period in between divorce and the remarriage. Here, admittedly the same is 28 months. If so, the amount shall be calculated @Rs.50,000/- X 28=Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakh only).
13. Thus the order impugned is interfered limiting fair and reasonable provision granted by the trial court from Rs.28,40,000/- to Rs.14,00,000/-, while confirming Rs.90,000/- granted towards maintenance for iddat period.
This Crl.R.P is accordingly allowed in part.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rtr/