Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 377 (MP)

Vasim Anwar v. Rabia Begum

2010-03-31

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Sagar in MJC No. 139/2008, whereby the application filed under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code by the respondents has been allowed and the applicant is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 was married with applicant on 17.7.1996 and respondent No.2 was born out of their wedlock who is residing with her mother. From the very beginning, the applicant used to demand dowry, subject her to cruelty and cause her marpeet on account of which she had lodged report. She also averred that the applicant also used to pressurize her to make illegal contacts with his friends for which she refused. She felt danger, therefore she is residing with her parents. She is not doing any job and unable to maintain herself. On the contrary the applicant is a Lecturer in Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University, Sagar and is getting Rs.18,000/- per month as salary. Apart from it he owns a pakka house and is earning Rs. 5,000/- per month there from. Thus, he is able to pay maintenance. An application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the respondents claiming maintenance allowance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month. 3. Applicant filed written statement denying the averments made by the respondents mainly contending that respondent No.1 lived with him only for three months and thereafter she has gone to her parental house on her own accord. She used to pressurize him to live at her parental house for which he refused, therefore, she is residing with her parents. He has also stated that respondent No.1 is earning Rs. 4,000/- from tuition and she has also got FDR of Rs. 5 lakhs and is getting Rs. 8,000/- per month as interest thereon. He has further averred that he is a Lecturer on ad hoc basis in Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University, Sagar and is getting Rs. 10,000/- per month as salary. He has to look after his old parents and unemployed brother. 5 lakhs and is getting Rs. 8,000/- per month as interest thereon. He has further averred that he is a Lecturer on ad hoc basis in Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University, Sagar and is getting Rs. 10,000/- per month as salary. He has to look after his old parents and unemployed brother. He has• further stated that since she herself has obtained divorce, therefore she is not entitled for maintenance. 4. Both the parties adduced the evidence. Respondent No. 1- Rabia Begum examined herself and applicant Vasim Anwar (NAW-l) examined himself as well as Sunil Sahu (NAW-2) and Firoz Anwar (NAW-3). After analyzing the evidence, the Court below found that the respondents are unable to maintain themselves and the applicant has neglected them, therefore they are entitled to get maintenance and awarded maintenance allowance as stated hereinabove in para 1 of the order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant revision has been preferred by the applicant. 5. Shri S.D. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause. He has divorced her therefore she is not entitled for maintenance in the light of sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Court below has erroneously passed the impugned order, therefore the same be set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Shabana Bano v. Imran, 2010 (1) JLJ 250 = AIR 2010 (SC) 305 . 6. On the contrary Shri Aseem Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the impugned order mainly contending that there is flaw in the order, hence does not call for any interference. 7. The main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the Court below has committed an illegality in granting maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.2. 8. Perused the evidence adduced by the parties. It is manifestly clear that the respondent No.1 is residing in her parental house. Respondent No.2 is also residing with her. The reason is that the applicant used to demand dowry, subject her to cruelty, cause her marpeet and pressurize her to make illegal contacts with his friends. 8. Perused the evidence adduced by the parties. It is manifestly clear that the respondent No.1 is residing in her parental house. Respondent No.2 is also residing with her. The reason is that the applicant used to demand dowry, subject her to cruelty, cause her marpeet and pressurize her to make illegal contacts with his friends. Once she lodged report against the applicant, on the basis of which an offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicant. It clearly indicates that the applicant used to harass her, therefore, she has to lodge a report. She is living separately because of danger to her life. It is also evident that the applicant is not maintaining her and no attempts have been made to bring her back to her matrimonial house. There is no reliable evidence that the respondent No.1 is having means to maintain herself. On the contrary applicant himself has admitted that he is a Lecturer on ad hoc basis in Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University, Sagar and is getting Rs. 10,000/- per month as salary. Thus he is having sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor child. Divorce has not been found proved by the Court below and the finding prima facie does not appear to be illegal. Even for the sake of argument, the same is accepted that the applicant divorced the respondent No.1, even then he is liable to pay maintenance till she remarries. In the case of Shabana Bano (supra) apex Court has held thus: "29. Cumulative reading of the relevant portions of judgments of this Court in Danial Latifi, 2001 AIR SCW 3932 (supra) and Iqbal Bano, 2007 AIR SCW 3880 (supra) would make it crystal clear that even a divorced Muslim woman would be entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband, as long as she does not remarry. This being a beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue to the divorce Muslim women. 30. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and quashed. This being a beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue to the divorce Muslim women. 30. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and quashed. It is held that even if a Muslim woman has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the expiry of period of iddat also, as long as she does not remarry." In such circumstances, the Court below has not committed any illegality in awarding the maintenance allowance to the respondents. No illegality, infirmity, impropriety or perversity is found in the impugned order of the Court below, hence no interference in the impugned order is called for. This revision is merit-less and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Consequently, this criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed.