NATHOO KHAN Vs. RAFIQAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Verma, J. The present revision has been filed against the judgment dated 7-5-1992 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barrenly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 113 of 1991.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Sent. Ratiqan filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. with the allegations that out of the wed-loaf between the two, a daughter who is now 13 years old was born. Three other issues were also born before this daughter but they could not survive. THE husband turned her out from his house and contracted another marriage. THE wife claimed Rs. 500 per month for herself and equal amount for daughter as maintenance. THE husband admitted the factum of marriage but stated in the written statement that he had divorced Smt. Rafiqan 18 years ago and the daughter was not born out of this wed-lock. THE Family Court after discussion of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that Smt. Rafiqan had not been divorced and she was entitled to Rs. 300 par month for herself and Rs. 200 for daughter per month from 7th January, 1991. Hence this revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the opposite party has argued on the basis of the decision in Ghulam Sabir v. Rayeesa Begum, 1988 AWC 910 : 1988 JIC 283 (All) that the learned Magistrate has yet to decide the question whether there has been a divorce in this case and if so on what date. If he comes to the con clusion that the divorce was not pronounced at all then obviously the Act of 1986 will not apply. To my mind, this argument has no force because of the legal position discussed earlier that even if the husband makes a deliration in his written statement that ho has divorced his wife then that declaration/acknowledgment of divorce will take effect from date of filing of the written statement.