MOHAMMED JAHIR Vs. NAZRATH FATIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the husband. First Respondent is the wife. Second, Third and Fourth respondents are minor children of the petitioner and the first respondent. Petitioner and first respondent were married according to the Mohammedan cus tom on 4-5-1975. Petitioner divorced the first re spondent under Mohammedan Law on 13-10-1984. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the pronouncement of 'Thalak' and issue of notice in this regard, the first respondent filed a petition under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 200.00 in respect of each of the respondents as monthly maintenance.

(2.) The learned Magistrate passed an order on 27 -3-1987 directing the payment of maintenance. Be ing aggrieved by the order dated 27-3-1987, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 360/1987 before this Court. The matter was disposed of by this Court on 18-7-1988 by remitting the matter to the learned Magistrate for fresh dis posal after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the first respondent the trial Court held that the petition under S. 125, Cr. P.C., was maintainable and directed that the first respondent is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200.00 p.m. and respondents 2 to 4 are entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150.00 p.m.

(3.) Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, has preferred this Criminal Revi sion Petition. The main contention of Mr. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that Muslim Women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act of 1986 (Central Act No. 25 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as 'amending Act') which came into force on 19-5-1986 would not entitle the respondent to claim maintenance from the petitioner after the divorce of a Muslim woman. Mr. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the dates in chronological order and stated that these dates have a bearing on his legal submissions. The following dates are relevant : "1. 13-10-1984 Petitioner pronounced Thalak and the same was communicated in writing to RPS No. 1. 2. 9-11-1984 R-I preferred a petition u/s. 125, Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance. 3. 23-4-1985 Date of Judgment of Supreme Court in Shahabanu case. 4. 19-5-1986 Central Act No. 25/1986 into force. 5. 27-3-1987 Order of Trial Court granting maintenance. 6. 12-6-1987 Cr. R. P. No. 360/87 preferred by the petitioner. 7. 12-6-1987 I. A. in Criminal Revision Petition. 8. 18-7-1938 C. R. P. allowed and remanded. 9. 13-1-1992 Cr. R. P. against the order dated 13-1-1992 of IIIrd Addl. C. J. M. Mysore in Crl. Misc. No. 264/84 granting maintenance under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C."@@@ In the back ground of the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to S. 4 which reads as follows :