Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 509 (ALL)

Razia v. State of U. P.

2022-04-06

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. C.M. Application No. 83077 of 2008 1. The application seeks condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. None appears for respondent no. 2. 4. Since cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing the instant revision is satisfactory, the application for condonation is allowed and delay in filing the instant revision is hereby condoned. (Order on the memo of Revision) 1. Heard Shri Avinash Srivastava holding brief of Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. None appears for respondent no. 2. However, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the present revision is pending since 2008 and even objections have not been filed by respondent no. 2 and the matter has never been argued by respondent no. 2. 3. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.4.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Pratapgarh passed in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2007, whereby the order of trial Court dated 23.1.2007 has been modified. The maintenance allowance of Rs. 1000/- awarded in favour of the revisionist no. 1 has been canceled or set aside and maintenance allowance in favour of revisionist nos. 2 and 3 has been reduced to Rs. 250/- per month from Rs. 500/- per month each. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 23.1.2007 has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist after adjudicating five issues. All those issues have been decided in favour of the revisionist. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, respondent no. 2 filed the revision before the revisional court, wherein the impugned order dated 11.4.2008 has been passed. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisional Court has wrongly relied and misinterpreted the judgment of Danial Latifi and Another vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3958 by allowing the revision. He submits that revision has been allowed only on the ground that since the revisionist no. 1 has been divorced by respondent no. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisional Court has wrongly relied and misinterpreted the judgment of Danial Latifi and Another vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3958 by allowing the revision. He submits that revision has been allowed only on the ground that since the revisionist no. 1 has been divorced by respondent no. 2 both are governed by The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 and therefore in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Danial Latifi (supra), after enforcement of this Act, the divorced Muslim women is entitled to get maintenance under Section 3 and Section 4 of the aforesaid Act even after the stage of iddat and therefore she is not entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In support of his arguments, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2309 of 2009. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that till date not a single penny has been given by respondent no. 2 to the revisionist. 7. On due consideration and perusal of the record as well as the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, it is not in dispute that respondent no. 2 is a person of having sufficient means to maintain his divorced wife and minor children. Issue no. 1 has been decided by learned trial Court in favour of the revisionist. Likewise he has neglected to maintain his wife and minor children. The revisionist is destitute and have no source of income and revisionist is entitled to get the maintenance allowance from respondent no. 2 and consequently issue nos. 2 to 5 have been decided in favour of the claimant revisionist. 8. It appears that revisional court has modified the order passed by the learned trial court and maintenance allowance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of respondent no. 1 has been set aside and the allowance granted in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been reduced to Rs. 250/- from Rs. 500/- per month. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the finding of fact regarding the monthly income of the respondent no. 1 has been set aside and the allowance granted in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been reduced to Rs. 250/- from Rs. 500/- per month. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the finding of fact regarding the monthly income of the respondent no. 2 given by the learned trial Court has been substituted by the revisional Court by its own finding and a different finding, which, in my opinion, is not permissible, while exercising jurisdiction in the criminal revision. On this ground, the maintenance allowance awarded to the revisionists no. 2 and 3 has been reduced to half, which is also not proper. 10. Learned revisional Court, while setting aside the maintenance allowance granted in favour of the revisionist no. 1 by the trial court, has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Danial Latifi (Supra). 2 and 3 has been reduced to half, which is also not proper. 10. Learned revisional Court, while setting aside the maintenance allowance granted in favour of the revisionist no. 1 by the trial court, has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Danial Latifi (Supra). The finding given by learned revisional Court is extracted below: rykd ds fcUnq ij i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh vksj ls dkQh cgl dh x;h gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd rykd'kqnk iRuh fdlh Hkh :i esa /kkjk nŒÁŒlaŒ ds vUrxZr xqtkjk HkRrk ikus dks vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA bl lUnHkZ esa fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us eqfLye oksesu ÁksVsD'ku vkQ jkbV vku MkbokslZ ,DV 1986 dh /kkjk 03 rFkk /kkjk 04 ds Áko/kkuksa ij U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkdf"kZr djk;kA /kkjk 03 esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd tc eqfLye efgyk dks rykd fn;k tkrk gS rc og eSgj rFkk vU; lEifRr;ka ikus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gksrh gS rykd ds le; igys ifr ls ;g bnRr ds ihfj;M ds vUnj fjtuscqy rFkk isij ,oa fuokZg HkRrk ikus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gksrh gSA ;g lkeku igys okys ifr }kjk okil fn;k tkrk gSA blh Ádkj ls /kkjk 04 esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd vius ifr ls ;fn ;g fuokZg HkRrk ikus esa Lo;a dks vleFkZ ikrh gS rks mldk fuokZg HkRrk fj'rsnkj nsxsaA ;fn og yksx Hkh nsus esa l{ke u gks rc eftLVsªV oDQ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 09 ds vUrxZr jkT; oDQ cksMZ dks vkns'k ns ldrk gS fd rykd'kqnk iRuh dk fuokZg HkRrk fn;k tk;A fuxjkuhdrkZ ds foKku vf/koDrk dh vksj ls utksj 2001 okWywe 45 ,Œ,yŒvkjŒ 426 Msfu;y yrhQ vkfn cuke ;wfu;u vkQ bafM;k nkf[ky fd;k gS ;g uthj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds ikap U;k;ewfrZx.k ds }kjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ;fn ,d eqfLye vkSjr vius ifr ds }kjk rykd ik ysrh gS vkSj og 125 lhŒvkjŒihŒlhŒ ds vUrxZr fuokZg HkRrk ml ifr ls ÁkIr dj ysrh gS rks ;fn ;g vf/kdkj lekIr dj fn;k tks fjtuscqy tLV rFkk isij u gksxkA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds dgus dk rkRi;Z gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 03 ,oa 04 ds vUrxZr ifr dks viuh rykd'kqnk iRuh ds Hkfo"; ds fy;s dqN u dqN fuokZgu ds fy;s djuk gksxkA ;g dsoy bnRr ds le; dks vof/k rd ds fy;s lhfer ugha gSA eqfLye rykd'kqnk vkSjr vius fj'rsnkjksa ds fo:} dk;Zokgh dj ldrh gS fd ;fn os fj'rsnkj fuokZg HkRrk nsus esa vleFkZ gS rks eftLVsªV LVsV oDQ cksMZ dks vkns'k fuokZg HkRrk ds fy;s tkjh dj ldrk gSA bl uthj ds voyksdu ls bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqpk tk ldrk gS fd rykd'kqnk iRuh vius iwoZ ifr ls fuokZg HkRrk ikus dh vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA rykd ls lEcfU/kr rF; dk mYys[k igys vk pqdk gS fd fuxjkuhdrkZ us igyh ckj rykd dks ckr vius tokc nkos esa ugha dgha cfYd lk{kh ukflj vyh tks fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls lk{kksa ds :i esa ÁLrqr gqvk gS mlus dgk gS fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; igys rykd gks pqdk FkkA rykd ds le; jft;k ml le; udkc esa ugha Fkh rykd tqckuh gqvk FkkA rykd esa fy[kkiढ-h ugha gqbZ FkhA bl lk{kh ds dFkukuqlkj rykd ds le; jft;k mifLFkfr ;g frfFk 16-10-1999 dh Fkh ftl fnu jft;k ds mis{kk ,oa frjLd`riw.kZ joS;s ls {kqC/k gksdj tSuqmn~nhu dks rykd nsus dh vko';drk gqbZA blls Li"V gS fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; rykd oS/k :i ls ÁHkkoh gSA bl rykd ds fy;s jft;k dks gh nks"kh Bgjk;k tk;sxk tSuqmn~nhu dks ugha D;ksafd jft;k gh LosPNk ls ek;ds esa jg jgh gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ ds }kjk nkf[ky mijksDr uthj ds voyksd ls Li"V gS fd rykd'kqnk eqfLye efgyk /kkjk 125 lhŒvkjŒihŒlhŒ ds vUrxZr iwoZ ifr ls ftlus esgj rFkk bnRr dh vof/k dks iwjk iSlk vnk fn;k gS fuokZg HkRrk ikus dks vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA ekStwnk dsl esa ;gh gS fd fuxjkuhdrkZ us jft;k dks rykd ns fn;k gS ftlds QyLo:i jft;k fuokZg HkRrk /kkjk 125 QkStnkjh ds vUrxZr ikus dks vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ ;g Lohdkj djrk gS fd vius nksuksa cPpksa dks fuokZg HkRrk nsus dks rS;kj gS ijUrq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vk; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, cgqr vf/kd fuokZg HkRrk dh /kujkf'k Ánku djus dk vkns'k ikfjr gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fjtuscqy ,.M isij dk fl}kUr gS fd og /kkjk 03 eqfLye oksesu ÁksVsD'ku vkQ jkbV vkQMkboksV ,DV 1986 ds vUrxZr ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA /kkjk 125] ds Ák/;ku bl ,DV ds ykxw gks tkus ls eqfLye rykd'kqnk efgyk dk dksbZ okLrk ljksdkj ugha jg tkrk gSA mDr ,DV dh /kkjk 03 ,oa 04 ds vUrxZr o bnRr dh vof/k ds i'pkr Hkh fuokZg HkRrk vius iwoZ ifr ls ik ldrh gSA bl Ádkj mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gaw fd foi{kh la[;k 01 jft;k /kkjk 125 nŒÁŒlaŒ ds vUrxZr fuokZg HkRrk ikus dks vf/kdkjh ugha gSA foi{kh la[;k 2 o 3 fuxjkuhdrkZ ls fuokZg ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; fuokZg HkRrk dh /kujkf'k 500@& :i;s Ánku ds fy;s vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS og blfy, tks rdZlaxr ugha gS fd fuxjkuhdrkZ dks vk; dk ,d ek= lk/ku mldks osru gS ;g osru 1500@& :i;s Áfrekg gS ftls foi{kh us Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA ,slh n'kk esa foi{kh la[;k 2 ,oa 3 ds fuokZg HkRrk dh /kujkf'k ikap lkS :i;s ls ?kVkdj 250@& :i;s fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa rdZlaxr Árhr gksrk gSA QyLo:i fuxjkuh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fnukafdr 23-01-2007 la'kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh la[;k 01 ds gd esa fuokZg HkRrk dh /kujkf'k 1000@& :i;s lekIr dh tkrh gS foi{kh 2 o 3 ds gd esa fuokZg HkRrk fn;s tkus dh U;wure /kujkf'k 500@& :i;s ls de djds 250@& :i;s fn;s tkus gsrq vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA i{kdkj okn O;; Lo;a ogu djsxsa i=koyh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks okil Hksth tk;A 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabana Bano (Supra) has held that a divorced Muslim women can be entitled for divorce as long as she does not re-marry. Further, it has been held that provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial piece of legislation and the benefit thereof must accrue to the divorced Muslim women. It has also been held that the divorced Muslim women shall be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even after expiry of period of iddat as long as she does not remarry. Relevant paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment are extracted below: “29. Cumulative reading of the relevant portions of judgments of this Court in Danial Latifi (supra) and Iqbal Bano (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 divorced 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 Cr.P.C. after the expiry of period of iddat also, as long as she does not remarry.” 12. In view of the aforesaid judgment of Sabana Bano (Supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the view taken by the revisional Court is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The revisionist no. 1 being a divorced Muslim women was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court is set-aside in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sabana Bano (supra). 14. While passing the judgment, this Court has noticed that the maintenance has been awarded to the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of the order, which according to recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 , should be paid from the date of application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and therefore, judgment being retrospective in nature is applicable in present case. 15. 15. Hence, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 23.1.2007 is also modified to the extent that the revisionist shall be paid maintenance by respondent no. 2 from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Any amount already paid during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by respondent no. 2 shall be adjusted. 16. The present revision is, accordingly, allowed.