J SHAKILA BANU Vs. M MOHAMMED RAFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.6.2006, passed by the Family Court(First Additional District Judge), Salem, in M.C.No,42 of 2005.) Challenging and impugning the order dated 27.6.2006, passed by the Family Court(First Additional District Judge), Salem, in M.C.No,42 of 2005, this criminal revision case is focussed.

(2.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:(a) The revision petitioner herein filed the M.C.No,42 of 2005 before the Family Court, Salem, seeking maintenance as against her husband-the respondent herein, claiming Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance as per Section 125 of Cr.P.C., on the ground that the husband neglected to maintain her and also failed to provide maintenance to her, even though she was not at fault and she was having no source of income to maintain herself.(b) The respondent resisted the claim that he pronounced 'taluq' and as such, as per the Muslim Law, he divorced his wife and she was not entitled to any maintenance. Admittedly, the Family Court dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisifed with the said order, this revision has been focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:-The Family Court even though gave a finding to the effect that there was no proper pronouncement of 'taluq' and consequently there was no divorce between the husband and wife, it fell into error in simply rejecting the claim of the petitioner/wife on the ground that it was she who refused to resume cohabitation with the husband. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for setting aside the order of the lower Court and for awarding maintenance.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner, by inviting the attention of this Court to the various documents as well as the judgment of the lower Court would develop his argument to the effect that the lower Court misunderstood the purport of the correspondence and held as though the husband was willing to resume cohabitation with the wife and that the wife was not willing to rejoin the husband.