Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 952 (MP)

Shahjad Khan S/o Jahangir Khan v. Rubnina Khan

2016-10-24

ALOK VERMA

body2016
ORDER : Alok Verma, J. 1. This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Badwah, district Khargone in Criminal Revision No. 35/2013 dated 24.09.2014 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly admitted the revision and modified the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class Badwah, district Indore, West Madhya Pradesh in MJC No. 21/09 dated 22.01.2013. 2. The relevant facts are that respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. According to the respondents, they are daughters and son of the applicant. Their mother Haneefa Sheikh was married to the plaintiff in the year 1989, according to muslims right and rituals. Due to their relationship the respondents were born. The application was filed on behalf of the respondents by their mother Hanifa Sheikh. Subsequently it was alleged that the respondent deserted the respondents and also married to another woman Nafeesa Bi in 2006. The applicant is working in the Union Bank. 3. The learned Magistrate found that respondent No. 2 Salman was born on 14.06.1992 and therefore he was about 21 years and therefore no maintenance was granted to him similar to Rubina. It was admitted that she was married after filing of the application and therefore no maintenance was granted to her as well. Rs. 3,500/- was awarded to respondent No. 3 till she gets married. 4. Aggrieved by order this revision is filed and the revisional Court modified the order by awarding Rs. 3,500/- for two years and 3,500/- to Salman for months. 5. This application is filed on the ground that under Section 3 of Muslim Woman (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act. The minor children at the time of divorce, was only entitled for maintenance up to two years and therefore no maintenance should be granted to respondent No. 3 till she attains majority or till she gets married. 6. The respondents prayed for maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- each however, maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- was awarded. It was further argued that interim maintenance was granted to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for four years. The revisional Court erred in not granting the adjustment of this amount in the final amount granted to them. 7. 6. The respondents prayed for maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- each however, maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- was awarded. It was further argued that interim maintenance was granted to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for four years. The revisional Court erred in not granting the adjustment of this amount in the final amount granted to them. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent No. 1 was already married and similarly the respondent No. 2 attained majority and therefore no order of maintenance should be granted in their favour. He further submits that the Muslims Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act provides for grant of maintenance only for two years. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Noor Saba Khatoon vs. Mohd Quasim, 1997 SC 3280 in which it was held that the provision of Section 3 of the Act does not supersede the provision of Section 125, so far as it relates to minor children of divorced muslim husband. The provision of Section 3 deals with period of maintenance if demanded by wife. When so demanded provision should be made by husband for minor children for two years. This is as to what a child can claim against their father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The liability of muslim adult to maintain his children is not extinguished by the provisions of the Act. 9. After going through the judgment of both the Courts below I find that this application is devoid of any force. The adjustment of interim amount paid by the applicant has been granted by the revisional Court. Till respondent No. 2 attained majority, she is entitled for the maintenance in accordance with principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Noor Saba Khatoon (supra) and similarly, in this case, respondent No. 1 attained majority and also entitled to receive maintenance till he attained majority. 10. Accordingly, I find that no case is made out for any interference in order of both the Courts below, this application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly.