The Kerala High Court has determined that a Muslim divorced woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for her future beyond just the iddat period. This obligation extends until she remarries, emphasizing that the entitlement is not confined solely to the iddat period.

Presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, the Kerala High Court emphasized the obligation of former husbands to provide fair and reasonable maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Referencing the landmark judgment in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and others* (1985), the court reiterated that if a divorced wife is unable to support herself during the iddat period, the husband must provide maintenance. Furthermore, if she faces financial difficulties after the iddat period, she is entitled to seek relief under Section 125 of the CrPC.

The case concerned a divorced Muslim woman (the 1st respondent) who sought maintenance from her former husband (the petitioner) under the provisions of the 1986 Act. The petitioner challenged the trial court's decision before the High Court, arguing that the wife was not entitled to the relief requested. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, had ruled in favor of the wife, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 9 lakh as maintenance, with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date the petition was filed until the amount was fully realized.

The husband argued that the maintenance awarded was excessive given the circumstances, asserting that his former wife, being well-educated and from a financially stable family, did not require such support. He contended that the trial court had not adequately considered her qualifications and financial background, suggesting that she should be self-sufficient.

Conversely, the wife provided evidence of her former husband's income and lifestyle, arguing that the maintenance was essential to cover her and her child's needs, considering their socio-economic situation and previous standard of living. She demonstrated that her former husband earned a substantial salary as a lab technician in Doha, Qatar, and that the maintenance amount had been determined based on rational calculations.

The High Court addressed three key questions:

1. Period of Entitlement: What is the duration for which a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to receive reasonable and fair provision and maintenance?

2. Essentials for Granting Maintenance: What factors are essential in determining the grant of reasonable and fair provision and maintenance?

3. Calculation Basis: What criteria should be used to calculate reasonable and fair provision and maintenance under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986?

The court answered the first question in favor of the wife, upholding the trial court's decision. It emphasized that the law mandates providing fair and reasonable maintenance to divorced Muslim women. The court clarified that the 1986 Act does not absolve former husbands from their obligations by merely paying customary dues. Instead, the maintenance provided must be adequate to meet the woman’s future needs, considering the prevailing socio-economic conditions.

“Going by the statutory provisions, Section 3(1)(a) [of the 1986 Act] 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,” the court observed.

Regarding the second question, the court held that when determining the maintenance amount, factors such as the parties' status, the former husband's capacity and ability to pay, and all relevant circumstances must be considered. The court reaffirmed that the 1986 Act requires the former husband to provide fair and reasonable maintenance to the divorced Muslim woman, which includes support during the iddat period, payment of Mahar, and the return of any properties given at marriage or thereafter. The court rejected the former husband's attempt to evade this statutory obligation by claiming that customary dues had been paid.

For the third question, the court noted the lack of a specific statutory formula for calculating reasonable and fair provision and maintenance. To address this gap, the court applied the multiplier method used in motor accident compensation cases, drawing on precedents from *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* and *National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi*. The court adjusted this method to account for the age of the divorced wife and other pertinent factors.

In this particular case, the trial court had initially set the former husband's monthly income at Rs. 5,000 and used a 15-year multiplier, resulting in a total maintenance amount of Rs. 9 lakh. However, the High Court recalculated this amount, considering the divorced wife’s age (44 years) and applying a 14-year multiplier, which led to a revised amount of Rs. 7,56,000.

Ultimately, the court upheld the other reliefs granted by the lower courts but reduced the overall maintenance amount to Rs. 7,56,000.

Cause Title: SHAJI AHAMMED v SALEENA [CRL.MC NO. 4247 OF 2023