Judgment :- 1. This revision is by the husband against his divorced wife. She obtained an order for maintenance to her and to her child, at the rate of Rs. 75/- and Rs. 37.50 per month respectively from the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. Originally, the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode, denied maintenance to her and granted Rs. 25/-to her child alone. The Magistrate relied upon Ext. Dl, which according to her operated as a discharge of all the claims that the wife would have bad against the husband, including customary dues. The learned Sessions Judge, in revision, ordered maintenance to the divorced wife at the rate of Rs. 75/-per month and enhanced the maintenance payable to the child from Rs. 25/-to Rs. 37.50 per month, holding that Ext. Dl cannot be availed of by the husband. The husband has come up in revision before this Court challenging the order of the Sessions Judge. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the Sessions Judge was largely influenced by the fact that the petitioner married a fourth time after divorce. The petitioner had adduced evidence in the case to show that he was a sickly man suffering from tuberculosis and had produced documents by way of medical certificate and prescriptions for medicines in support of that case. The Sessions Judge declined to rely upon these documents, since the name given in the prescriptions is only Mohammed without the necessary initials of the petitioner for proper identification. But the Sessions Judge overlooked the fact that this was not seriously challenged by the wife before the trial Court. I say so, because in cross-examination, no attempt appears to have been made to make out that the prescriptions related to some other Muhammed. Therefore, the learned judge was in error in rejecting his evidence in toto. 3. To arrive at the quantum of maintenance also, the learned judge appears to have misdirected himself, on the evidence adduced. CPW1 is the petitioner and CPW2, a witness on his side. According to the petitioner, he is a trader in'Murukku'. According to his witness, the petitioner supplies him'Murukku' at his tea shop From this, the learned judge jumps to the conclusion that the petitioner is capable of doing business and earn his living. CPW1 is the petitioner and CPW2, a witness on his side. According to the petitioner, he is a trader in'Murukku'. According to his witness, the petitioner supplies him'Murukku' at his tea shop From this, the learned judge jumps to the conclusion that the petitioner is capable of doing business and earn his living. He also relies upon the admissions made by the petitioner that there are 25 coconut trees in the property wherein he lives and that there is a shop room. There is no further discussion about the actual income available from these coconut trees and the shop room. The wife, in her evidence, has not satisfactorily proved the actual or even the approximate income that the petitioner gets per month. There is only her evidence that the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 1,000 per month. The evidence is not sufficient or conclusive about the means of the husband. 4. Now, coming to Ext. Dl, the trial Court erred in holding that it operated as a complete discharge of all claims by the wife against the husband. Ext. Dl is styled a receipt, dated 1110 1972. As per this, in lieu of mahar, household articles which belong to the wife and all other transactions between the parties, an amount of Rs. 2,200/- was fixed and was paid to the wife. This, according to the trial Court, constituted a discharge of the customary dues contemplated in S.127 (3), which is clearly wrong. 5. S.12: Cr. P. C. was enacted after Ext. D1. It is by this section that a divorced wife gets a right for maintenance. Under S.125, a wife includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not re-married. In this case, the evidence is that the wife has not re-married. Therefore, she is entitled to maintenance. She can be denied maintenance only if she has received before the order of maintenance or after, the whole of the sum which under any customary or personal law applicable to the parties is payable on divorce. After the passing of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, muslims in India are to be governed by the Shariath Law on all subjects including maintenance. There are certain groups among muslims in this country to whom in certain matters customary law applied. After the passing of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, muslims in India are to be governed by the Shariath Law on all subjects including maintenance. There are certain groups among muslims in this country to whom in certain matters customary law applied. To prove that a custom opposed to the Islamic faith applied to a party before a Court, it is necessary for such party to clearly plead and prove the said custom to the satisfaction of the Court. So far as the Muslims of Kerala are concerned, there is no custom by which a claim for maintenance by the wife could be discharged by payment of customary dues. 6. Under the Muslim Personal Law, as applied by Courts in India, a divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance after divorce only for the period of iddath. Even here, there is difference between Shaffi and Hanafi Law. S.125 Cr P. C. imports a legal fiction, which is that a divorced wife continues to be a wife notwithstanding the divorce, in her claim for maintenance until she remarries. The husband, under the new clause, can successfully resist the claim of the wife for maintenance only if he establishes a custom, that certain customary dues, if paid, at the time of divorce, would disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance. What exactly is meant by customary dues, I do not propose to examine here. 7. In Kunhi Moyin v. Pathumma (1976 KLT. 87) speaking for the Bench,1 have observed: "On the other hand, what is impliedly covered by this clause (S. 127 (3) (b)) is such sums of money as alimony or compensation made payable on dissolution of the marriage under customary or personal law codified or uncodified, or such amount agreed upon at the time of marriage to be paid at the time of divorce; the wife agreeing not to claim maintenance or any other amount" From Ext. D1 it is not at all clear that any customary dues constituted consideration for that document. Mahar is an amount payable by the husband to the wife either prompt or deferred. Payment of Mahar will not effect a discharge of a claim for maintenance, because the claim for mahar is a valuable right available to the wife and this claim is a charge over the properties of the husband. Therefore, mention of payment of mahar in Ext. Payment of Mahar will not effect a discharge of a claim for maintenance, because the claim for mahar is a valuable right available to the wife and this claim is a charge over the properties of the husband. Therefore, mention of payment of mahar in Ext. D1, will not also operate as payment of customary dues in discharge of the claim for maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that Ext Dl cannot be used against the wife to deny her the benefit of the new section. 8. The only question that survives for consideration is, the quantum of maintenance. From the evidence of the wife, it is clear that there was some pressure brought upon the husband by her brothers and father, who are influential, to pronounce 'Talak'. The husband is a sickly person. There is no conclusive evidence regarding his means. Even so, there is sufficient material in Ext. Dl in the form of an admission by the husband to pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs. 37.0. In spite of this admission, the trial Court granted maintenance only at the rate of Rs, 25/- per month. I hold that the Sessions Judge was justified in enhancing the maintenance to the child to Rs 37 50. However,1 feel some interference is necessary regarding the amount of maintenance granted to the wife. While S.488 made it compulsory for the husband to maintain the wife, rich or poor, the new section has qualified the wife who is entitled to get maintenance as unable to maintain herself. From the evidence, it is clear that she belongs to a rich family. Although there was a fervent appeal by the petitioner's counsel to remit the case back to the Sessions Court for re-consideration of the evidence is the ease, I am not satisfied that the said request need be granted. However. I hold that interests of justice will be met by reducing the maintenance granted to the wife from Rs. 75 to Rs. 50 per month. In the result, the Crl. R.P. is disposed of by reducing the maintenance awarded to the wife from Rs. 75 to Rs. 50/- and by confirming the maintenance granted to the child at Rs. 37.50 per month. 75 to Rs. 50 per month. In the result, the Crl. R.P. is disposed of by reducing the maintenance awarded to the wife from Rs. 75 to Rs. 50/- and by confirming the maintenance granted to the child at Rs. 37.50 per month. Although the Magistrate directed payment of maintenance from the date of the order, the Sessions Judge directed it to be from the date of the petition, since this was taken as a ground in revision before him. I do not think there is sufficient material placed before me to interfere with the said direction.