SHAKIBA KHATOON Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. N. Ojha, J. Instant revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 2-2-2001 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, in Case No. 238 of 2000, Smt. Shakiba Khatoon and one other v. Darvez Ahmad, by which the application moved by the wife Smt. Shakiba Khatoon under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance was rejected but it was allowed in favour of minor daughter Kumari Najish Parveen alias Arsi and the opposite party No. 2, Darvez Ahmad was directed to make payment of maintenance allowance to the minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 200 per month.

(2.) HEARD Sri Naushad Siddiqui, holding brief of Sri R. V. Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and Sri Awadhesh Rai, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and have gone through the record.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited 2002 All India Judicial Interpretation on Crimes 911, Shamim Ara v. State of U. P. and another, in which it has been held that if talaq is made it must be pronounced. Mere description in the written statement that talaq was made on some particular date is not sufficient. It was observed by Hon'ble the apex Court that "we are very clear in our mind that a mere plea taken in the written statement of a divorce having been pronounced sometime in the past cannot by itself be treated as effectuating talaq on the date of delivery of the copy of the written statement to the wife". It was further observed that "a plea of previous divorce taken in the written statement cannot at all be treated as pronouncement of talaq by the husband on wife on the date of filing of the written statement in the Court followed by delivery of a copy thereof to the wife. "