Kerala High Court upholds use of multiplier 10 in Muslim woman’s maintenance calculation

Upholding the decision of the session court, Justice Girish noted that the amount fixed by the trial court was not only based on the estranged husband’s income but also took into account his financial background, including the assets of the family.

The court reaffirmed the decision of the session court fixing Rs 27,000 as the notional monthly amount for calculation and, by applying a multiplier of 10, determined the maintenance during the iddat period and the reasonable and fair provision as Rs 81,000 and Rs 32.40 lakh, respectively.

The divorced wife argued that the multiplier of 10 was ‘grossly inadequate’ and the multiplier of 18 instead of 10 should be preferred as used in motor-accident compensation cases.

On the other hand, the estranged husband contended that the maintenance amount was ‘excessive’. He also argued that the monthly income considered by the lower courts reflected his salary at the time of giving evidence and not at the time of divorce.

The high court held that there was no apparent error or illegality in the findings of the lower courts and dismissed their petitions.

Background of case

In this case, a divorced Muslim woman claimed various reliefs under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, before the trial court.

Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 deals with the reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to a divorced woman within the iddat period.

Iddat period is the time in which Muslim divorced women are prohibited from remarrying to ascertain paternity if she is pregnant.

The trial court awarded her Rs 81,000 as maintenance for the iddat period and Rs 32.40 Lakhs towards reasonable and fair provision, rejecting all other claims, including the recovery of gold ornaments weighing 77 sovereigns.

However, the divorced Muslim woman, as well as her estranged husband, approached the session court of Kozhikode for revising the orders which were dismissed by the court, noting that there was ‘absolutely no ground to interfere’ with the trial court’s decision.

Lastly, both parties moved the high court, which dismissed their pleas.

From the homepage

Bihar’s Chief Ministers | Nitish Kumar: Journey from early poll losses to becoming longest-serving CM

Bihar Election Results 2025 LIVE Updates: What’s next for Tejashwi Yadav after the RJD debacle

Want to know what’s wrong with the Congress? Look at its reaction to Bihar loss