SMT. SHAKILA KHATUN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dtd. 20/9/2021, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur, in Case No. 665 of 2020 (Smt. Shakila Khatun and others vs. Ali Husen), under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the case of revisionist under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that impugned judgment and order is against the facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that marriage/Nikah of revisionist with opposite party No.2 has taken place in the year 2006 but she was harassed by the opposite party No.2 on account of dowry and later on she was divorced by the opposite party No.2 on 20/8/2009. The revisionist has not re-married so far. The revisionist along with her minor children has filed a case under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the opposite party No.2 but the claim of revisionist was rejected by the Court below vide impugned order by holding that divorced Muslim woman is not entitled for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. Referring to impugned judgment and order, it is submitted that the claim of revisionist under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected merely on the said ground that she, being divorced wife, is not entitled for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., which is against settled position of law. Learned counsel has referred the case of Danial Latifi vs. Union of India 2001 Law Suit(SC) 1293 and case of this Court in Jubair Ahmad vs. Ishrat Bano 2019(3)DMC 789 and submitted that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, which has been followed by this Court, it is clear that a divorced Muslim wife is entitled for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. even after the iddat period, till she re-marries. It is also submitted that there is absolutely no such evidence that divorce between the parties took place by mutual consent or that she was residing separately by mutual consent. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned order is against well settled position of law and thus liable to be set aside.