ABDUL WAHID Vs. ANISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Sahay, J. This is a revision against the order dated 1. 12. 89 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, allowing the application of Smt. Anisa Begum, opposite party No. 1, under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protec tion of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and directing Abdul Wahid, revisionist, to pay a certain sum of money, specified in the order, to her.

(2.) THE revisionist and opposite party No. 1 are Muslims, who were married in 1982. A divorce took place between them on 15th July, 1986 and thereafter on 20th December in the same year the aforesaid application was made by opposite party No. 1 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,600. 00 from the revisionist. THE application was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj in District Farrukhabad. THE application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 10th August, 1988 on the ground that the op posite party No. 1 resided at Kanpur at the time of filing the application and, therefore, the court has no jurisdiction. THE opposite party No. 1 filed revision which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as aforesaid. He took the view that at the time of filing the application, the opposite party No. 1 resided with her grand parents in Minva Ganj Kannauj and, therefore, the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to decide the case. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge also proceeded to consider the case on merits and accordingly directed the revisionist to pay to the opposite party No. 1 a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 as price of certain goods, Rs. 5,000. 00 as Mehr, Rs. 3,000. 00 per month as maintenance during the period ohddat and Rs. 1,000. 00 as maintenance of the Children for a period of one year six months 'and Rs. 200. 00 as expenses; thus, a sum of Rs. 19,600. 00 in all.

(3.) IT will be appropriate to adopt the same legal connotation of the word "reside", as has been described above, so far as the provisions of Section 2 (c) of the aforesaid Act are concerned. The object of the Act is the same as of Section 488 or Section 125, namely to protect the rights of a divorced Muslim woman and to make provision for her main tenance and support and the context in which the word has been used is almost same although the operation of the Act is confined to a particular community. So the word "reside" as used in Section 2 (c) of the aforesaid Act is to be understood as meaning the place where the divorced woman through her choice makes it her abode permanently or temporarily, but not a place where she pays a flying visit or has a casual stay. IT will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, whether she has chosen to make a particular place her abode and has the animus manendi for the said purpose.