Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1985 (RAJ)

Jahanara : Mohd. Musharat v. Mohd. Musharat

2011-09-15

NISHA GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Both these Misc. Petitions arise out of common order, hence these Misc. Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These Misc. petitions have been filed against the order dated 26.9.2006 by which revision petition has been dismissed and the order dated 18.5.2006 of the trial Court was upheld by which T 50,000/- maintenance has been awarded to the petitioner Jahanara. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The main contention of petitioner Jahanara is that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- is very meagre and the trial Court and the revisional Court have not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. The petitioner has demanded for Rs. 1,00,000/-, that too six years back and hence maintenance should be enhanced. At the same time, she has also submitted that the gifts given at the time of marriage by in-laws, should also be ordered to be given back. 5. The counsel for the respondent-Mohd. Musharat has submitted that there was no occasion for giving any maintenance to the petitioner as she was divorced long back and she can ask for the maintenance only for iddat period and hence the impugned order should be quashed. 6. The main contention of the counsel for the respondent is that according to Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of rights of divorce) Act, 1986, maintenance should be awarded only upto lddat period. The learned counsel for the petitioner Jahanara has submitted that the duty is cast upon the husband to provide reasonable and fair maintenance for the life time of his wife or unless she gets married for a second time. He has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in the case of Danilal Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 3 Femi-Juris C.C. 20 (SC) wherein it has been observed as under : "Reasonable and fair provision for maintenance not limited only for the iddat period but it would extend to the whole life of divorced wife unless she gets married for a second time." 7. Looking at the above legal position, it is clear that it is the duty of the husband to provide reasonable fair provision for the maintenance which will extent to whole life of the wife. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the one time maintenance has been awarded to the present petitioner Jahanara. 8. Looking at the above legal position, it is clear that it is the duty of the husband to provide reasonable fair provision for the maintenance which will extent to whole life of the wife. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the one time maintenance has been awarded to the present petitioner Jahanara. 8. The learned trial Court has considered the material available before him and after considering the factual and legal aspects, status and earnings of the parties, had awarded maintenance and there is no infirmity in the impugned order arrived at by the trial Court. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is in Government service. He had contacted the second marriage. He is also maintaining the children from the first marriage and hence looking at the above factual position, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. 10. Looking at the fact that the original maintenance order was passed way back in 2006 and it is not in dispute that price of the essential commodities are increased and the purchase value of ruppe has been decreased and no money has been given to the petitioner-wife in compliance of this order. Hence it is reasonable to award 9% interest on the awarded amount from the date of order of the trial Court dated 18.5.2006 till the date of payment. 11. The next contention of the present petitioner-Jahanara is that gifts were given to her at the time of marriage by the in-laws and they were not returned. The learned counsel for the respondent Mohd. Mushrat submitted that no such gifts were given and whatever stridlian was with them, has been returned in the proceedings under Section 498A. He also submitted that proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. were pending between the parties which were terminated by the compromise with the consent of the parties. These contentions are after thought, never taken in previous proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and under Section 498 I.P.C. Nothing has been alleged regarding bari articles in previous proceedings. He also submits that all the articles which were available with the respondent, were returned in the proceeding under Section 498A. 12. The learned trial Court has specifically dealt with these contentions. He also submits that all the articles which were available with the respondent, were returned in the proceeding under Section 498A. 12. The learned trial Court has specifically dealt with these contentions. It has been specifically stated by the father of the petitioner that there was a document regarding bari articles but no such document was produced before the trial Court and there was no material evidence produced by the present petitioner to prove that any bari articles were given by the in-laws. Hence looking to the factual aspect of the case, there is no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court regarding issue No. 3 and which was upheld by the revisional Court. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order. 13. In view of the above, the misc. petition of the petitioner-Jahanara (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 12/2007) is partly allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner is entitled interest @ 9% per annum from the order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the learned trial Court on the awarded amount of Rs. 50,000/- till the date of payment. The misc. petition of the respondent-Mohammed Musharat (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1421/2006) is also disposed of, as discussed above.Revisions dismissed. *******