OMAR ABDULLAH Vs. PAYAL ABDULLAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C .) challenging the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in M- Petition No.111 of 2016 and seeks quashing of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.

(2.) Long and heated arguments were heard.

(3.) Ms. Malvika Rajkotia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and all the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner are not maintainable at the very outset for being specifically barred by the statutory provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.; that the most important pre-requisite as laid down in the said provision that, the "claimant" should be unable to maintain herself, is not established in the present case; that the petitioner filed a divorce petition in the year 2013 and since then respondent No.1 did not seek any maintenance as she is an empowered woman and is a Director in three companies and has sufficient means to sustain herself; that the respondent No. 2/Zahir Abdullah and respondent No. 3/Zamir Abdullah are not entitled to any maintenance as respondent No.2/Zahir Abdullah had already attained majority and respondent No. 3/Zamir Abdullah has attained majority on 18.01.2017 and hence the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable .