ORDER : B. Kemal Pasha, J. A poor girl of 17 was, unfortunately, given in marriage, evidently without her consent, to the petitioner herein. The parties are Muslims. In fact, the contract of marriage was entered into by overlooking the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The plight of the poor girl, after the marriage was horrible. She was tortured and harassed to the maximum. Admittedly, an amount of 1 lakh and gold ornaments weighing 30 sovereigns were obtained by the petitioner from the parents of the girl at the time of marriage. He has spent all the money and misappropriated the gold ornaments. Harassment continued. In the meant time, she became pregnant. In the seventh month of her pregnancy, she was thrown out of the matrimonial house. Her condition was serious and there was severe bleeding. The girl was taken to a hospital from where she was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, where she had undergone treatment as inpatient. The petitioner, who was the husband, or any one of his relatives, did not care even to pay a visit to the hospital. Finally, she gave birth to a male child. In the mean time, the petitioner, who was in search of other similar fertile avenues, had gone into a form of marriage with another girl. 2. The relatives of the girl, including her father, filed a complaint before the Thenhipalam Police Station, which culminated in a compromise talk at the instance of the Police at the Police Station, in which the petitioner and his relatives on the one part and the relatives of the poor girl on the other part had participated. The Police decided that the matter could be settled by permitting the petitioner to repay an amount of Rs. 90,000/- out of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and by return 10 sovereigns of gold only out of 30 sovereigns of gold misappropriated by the petitioner. The relatives of the girl had no other go than to succumb to the pressure of the Police, and Ext. P1 agreement to that effect was entered into on 20.11.2002. As per the said agreement, the petitioner had agreed to return the said amount of Rs. 90,000/- and the 10 sovereigns of gold on or before 30.1.2003. 3. The petitioner has not cared to comply with the said conditions in Ext. P1 agreement to that effect was entered into on 20.11.2002. As per the said agreement, the petitioner had agreed to return the said amount of Rs. 90,000/- and the 10 sovereigns of gold on or before 30.1.2003. 3. The petitioner has not cared to comply with the said conditions in Ext. P1 agreement, thereby, the relatives of the girl had to approach the Police again. The Police called the petitioner and enquired the matter. Then, the petitioner agreed to make the said payment and to return the said quantity of gold on 3.2.2003. The girl along with his father and a relative went over to the Police Station on 3.2.2003. Then, to their utter dismay, they were directed to sign in another agreement for getting the repayment of Rs. 90,000/- and the gold ornaments weighing 10 sovereigns covered by Ext. P1 agreement. The thumb impression of the girl was obtained and Ext. D1 notarised agreement was created. Strangely enough, it seems that Ext. D1 was attested by an Advocate who is a notary, who was also appearing for the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Parappanangadi, in the very same case! 4. According to the petitioner, the Talaq was pronounced on 28.1.2003; whereas according to the father of the girl, she came to know from the Juma-at Secretary that there was a Talaq pronounced by the petitioner on 7th February, 2003. Whatever it is, presently there is no dispute with regard to the so called extra judicial divorce. The specific case of the girl is that apart from getting an amount of Rs. 90,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold as contained in Ext. P1 agreement, on 3.2.2003 at the Police Station, she was not paid any amount towards maintenance during the period of Iddath as well as fair provision and maintenance. It is a pity that the girl has not challenged the contents of Ext. P1, even though it contained a lesser payment of amount than what was received by the petitioner from the father of the girl and also a meagre quantity of 10 sovereigns gold, out of the 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments received by the petitioner from the father of the girl at the time of marriage. The parties are not challenging the contents of Ext. P1, even though it was entered into at the Police Station. 5. The parties are not challenging the contents of Ext. P1, even though it was entered into at the Police Station. 5. The case of the petitioner is that by complying with the conditions stipulated in Ext. P1, he had paid the amount as well as returned 10 sovereigns of gold to the girl on 28.1.2003. At the same time, he has not mentioned the place at which the same were allegedly returned on 28.1.2003. His further case is that the Police had directed him to make another agreement on 3.2.2003 thereby such an agreement (Ext. D1) was executed and it was notarised on the same day. Even though he has a case that including an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards the claims of the girl on divorce, a total amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- was paid, even in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, he has not specifically stated that the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid on 3.2.2003. What has been affirmed in the affidavits that the said agreement was executed on 3.2.2003. 6. Claiming a reasonable and fair provision and also maintenance during the period of Iddath, as provided under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the girl filed M.C. No. 272004 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Parappanangadi. After recording the evidence, the learned Magistrate through order dated 25.1.2008 allowed the Crl. M.C. by directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs. 3,500/- towards maintenance during the period of Iddath and an amount of Rs. 66,000/- towards reasonable and fair provision. 7. The matter was taken up in revision before the Sessions Court The petitioner herein filed Crl. R.P. 3208 challenging the order and the girl filed Crl. R.P. 5208 praying for enhancement. Both the revisions were heard together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II) Manjeri. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed Crl. R.P. 3208 filed by the petitioner herein and hence the present Crl. M.C. 318709. Through the said common order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed Crl. R.P. 52 of 2008 filed by the girl thereby enhancing the amount towards reasonable and fair provision to Rs. 1,20,000-, and the maintenance during the Iddath period to Rs. 6,000/-. It is aggrieved by the said order, the present Crl. R.P. 697/10 has been preferred by the petitioner herein, who was the husband. 8. R.P. 52 of 2008 filed by the girl thereby enhancing the amount towards reasonable and fair provision to Rs. 1,20,000-, and the maintenance during the Iddath period to Rs. 6,000/-. It is aggrieved by the said order, the present Crl. R.P. 697/10 has been preferred by the petitioner herein, who was the husband. 8. Heard the learned counsel Sri. E. Narayanan, appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.P. Sudheer, appearing for the girl, who is the party respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously attempted to make out a case that Ext. D1 is a valid agreement whereby the entire claims of the divorced girl were settled and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any further amounts towards fair provision and maintenance and as maintenance during the period of Iddath. The learned counsel for the party respondent has fully supported the findings entered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. The facts narrated earlier are self speaking. After abandoning the girl, who was given in marriage to the petitioner when she was only 17, after satisfying his lust, by which a gift as pregnancy was given to the girl, and after misappropriating her entire gold ornaments and money as aforesaid, the girl was mercilessly thrown out of the matrimonial house. While the bleeding girl was undergoing treatment unattended by the petitioner or any of his relatives, the petitioner, who was in search of similar fertile avenues, could profitably in all sense, marry again. 10. It is evident that the girl had no other option than to heed to the petty offer of the petitioner that she should be satisfied with the amount of Rs. 90,000/- out of the amount off Rs. 1,00,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold out of 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments received by him from her father at the time of the marriage. It is not disputed or challenged that the entire amount of Rs. 1 lakh as well as the entire gold ornaments weighing 30 sovereigns were taken away and misappropriated by the petitioner. As per the direction of the police, Ext. P1 agreement was executed whereby the petitioner had agreed to return an amount of Rs. 90,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It has clearly come out in evidence that the petitioner has failed to comply with the undertaking as contained in Ext. As per the direction of the police, Ext. P1 agreement was executed whereby the petitioner had agreed to return an amount of Rs. 90,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It has clearly come out in evidence that the petitioner has failed to comply with the undertaking as contained in Ext. P1, and finally, the relatives of the girl had to approach the Police again. Then, he agreed to return the same on 3.2.2003. 11. On 3.2.2003 when the girl and her father along with the relative, reached the Police Station, another demand was forwarded by the petitioner for the execution of another agreement for complying with the terms of Ext. P1. The poor girl had to agree, as otherwise, she was afraid that even the said amount of Rs. 90,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments would not have been returned. Her thumb impression was obtained at the bottom of a stamp paper, and an agreement was created. Strangely enough, it seems that the very same lawyer of the petitioner who was appearing for him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Parappanangadi is the notary who notarised the said so called agreement, marked as Ext. D1. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, there is every reason to believe that Ext. D1 is an agreement cooked up subsequent to the obtaining of the thumb impression of the girl in the stamp paper. It seems that some portion of the terms of the agreement were written over her thumb impression. If as a matter of fact, the agreement was executed and her thumb impression was obtained after writing down the contents, it should have been got affixed at the bottom of the contents written in the agreement, when space is available there. 12. The evidence of the girl, who was examined as PW 1, clearly reveals the correctness of her case. Her evidence is not shattered in cross examination. Even though she was subjected to searching cross examination at length, nothing could be brought out in order to impeach her credit or to impair her credibility. Her evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW 2, who happened to be the signatory in Ext. P1 as well as Ext. D1. Her evidence is not shattered in cross examination. Even though she was subjected to searching cross examination at length, nothing could be brought out in order to impeach her credit or to impair her credibility. Her evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW 2, who happened to be the signatory in Ext. P1 as well as Ext. D1. It has clearly come out from the evidence of PW 2 that there was no talk regarding the payment of maintenance during the period of Iddath as well as the fair provision and maintenance. PW 1 has a clear case that the concerned lawyer who is seen to have notarised Ext. D1 agreement was also present along with the petitioner herein, at the Police Station. 13. Apart from all the above, even the petitioner, who was examined as CPW 1, has no case in the affidavit in lieu of chief examination that he had made any payment on 3.2.2003. His specific contention in the said affidavit is that he was asked by the Police to prepare another agreement on 3.2.2003 whereby he prepared such an agreement, which was duly notarised. Even though he has made a passing remark in the affidavit that an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- was paid, he has no case that there was any compromise talk relating to the payment of maintenance during the period of Iddath or fair provision and maintenance. Evidently, Ext. D1 is a concocted and false document created and cooked up by the petitioner with the aid of others. There is gross illegality in the execution of Ext. D1. The contents of Ext. D1 are false and unbelievable, and the same cannot be relied on for any purpose. 14. As per S. 3(1)(a) of the Act, a divorced woman shall be entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the Iddath period by her former husband. The legislature has carefully used the terms "a reasonable and fair provision and the maintenance" and not "a reasonable and fair provision for maintenance". The word "provision" is used in the sense that it should be for making some arrangement for the future period. The Section is carefully worded by incorporating the terms "to be made and paid". The legislature has carefully used the terms "a reasonable and fair provision and the maintenance" and not "a reasonable and fair provision for maintenance". The word "provision" is used in the sense that it should be for making some arrangement for the future period. The Section is carefully worded by incorporating the terms "to be made and paid". On a careful analysis of the said Section, it is evident that the term "to be made" must obviously follow the term "reasonable and fair provision" and it should be read as "a reasonable and fair provision to be made to her within the Iddath period". Similarly, the term "to be paid" must follow the term "maintenance" in order to make it a read as "maintenance to be paid within the Iddath period". Therefore, as per the said provision, the former husband is bound to make a reasonable and fair provision to the divorced wife, within the Iddath period. Likewise, the former husband is bound to pay the maintenance to the divorced wife during the Iddath period also. 15. There is no statutory limitation to limit the reasonable and fair provision to an amount equal to the maintenance for five years. In a case like the present one in which the poor girl was abandoned and even prior to the so-called the extra-judicial divorce, the husband has chosen to marry another girl, and subsequently pronounces the Talaq, thereby, effecting an extra-judicial divorce, such a former husband cannot expect that the reasonable and fair provision should be limited to the amount of maintenance payable for five years. In judicial wisdom, the amount equal to maintenance payable for five years was fixed as reasonable and fair provision, in normal cases, just as a guideline. In appropriate cases, court can award a higher amount under that head, when court thinks it as reasonable and fair. 16. In this particular case, the girl has prayed for an amount of Rs. 6000/- being maintenance for Iddath period and an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as reasonable and fair provision. When it is stipulated by the statute that such "provision" shall be a reasonable and fair one, it is evident that the said "provision" shall be calculated by the court dealing with it, in order to make it reasonable and fair. In such cases, the concerned divorced wife need not claim any particular amount towards "reasonable and fair provision". When it is stipulated by the statute that such "provision" shall be a reasonable and fair one, it is evident that the said "provision" shall be calculated by the court dealing with it, in order to make it reasonable and fair. In such cases, the concerned divorced wife need not claim any particular amount towards "reasonable and fair provision". Even if what is claimed by such a divorced wife under that head is a lesser amount than what is reasonable and fair, the court is not helpless in awarding a higher amount as reasonable and fair provision. What is expected from such a divorced wife for the calculation of a reasonable and fair provision, is sufficient data for its calculation. The legislature in its wisdom has used the term "reasonable and fair" evidently in order to make it the duty of the court dealing with the matter to award a "provision", which is reasonable and fair. This Court is of the view that even the learned Sessions Judge was stingy in ordering the reasonable and fair provision as well as the maintenance dating the period of Iddath, as the entire claim of the girl was not granted, even when such claims are reasonable. There is absolutely nothing to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Matters being so, this Crl. M.C. as well as this Crl. R.P. are devoid of merits and are only to be dismissed, and I do so. In the result, Crl. M.C. 3187/09 as well as Crl. R.P. 697/10 are dismissed.