FAIZUDDIN KHAN Vs. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Haseena Begum, respondent no. 3 was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She moved an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance and that application, after contest, was allowed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 17-12-1984 and a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 150/- was granted to the lady. The petitioner paid some amount in pursuance of the order of the learned Magistrate initially but thereafter payment was declined and the petitioner on 1-1-1987 moved an application 19/B before the learned Magistrate on the ground that he has divorced respondent no. 3 and in view of Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights of Divorce), Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) nothing is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 18-12- 1987. A revision filed against this order has also been dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated October 7, 1988. Against these two orders this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) SO far the order dated 17-12-1984 whereby maintenance was allowed in favour of respondent no. 3 is concerned, this order was not challenged by the petitioner. In this order the learned Magistrate has held that even a divorced woman is entitled to maintenance in view of the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was only after the enforcement of the Act in 1986 that the petitioner moved an application on 1-1-1987 disowning the liability to make payment to the divorced woman. This Act came into force on May 19, 1986, and is not retrospective in operation. It does not invalidate an order which has already become final. Section 7 provides that every application by a divorced woman under Sections 125 or 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure pending before the Magistrate on the commencement of this Act is to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of respondent no. 3 was decided on 17-12-1984 and at that time when the Act came into force, nothing was pending. The Act as such cannot apply to the present case and order of learned Magistrate is liable to be executed against the petitioner