IMTIYAZ AHMAD Vs. SHAMIM BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order of Judge Family Court, Allahabad dated 13-6-1997 in case No. 491 of 1991 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. awarding Rs. 350.00 per month as maintenance allowance for the period commencing from 6-4-1989 to 29-10-1991 and for a further period of three months thirteen days, i.e. the period of Iddat.

(2.) The order has been challenged on the ground that it is not maintainable in view of Section 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 (in short Muslim Women Act). He has referred the case of Mohammad Umar Khan v. Gulshan Begum Criminal Revision No. 503 of 1989 decided on 28-2-1991 (reported in 1992 Cri LJ 899) by Hon. B. M. Lal, J. as he was sitting singly in Madhya Pradesh High Court at that time, wherein it has been held that no proof is required to prove the Talaq as per Section 310 of Mulla's Mohammadan Laws and hence application by the wife for interim maintenance is not tenable.

(3.) In that case the applicant-husband appeared before the court after receipt of the notice in December 1983 with the plea that he had divorced the respondent-wife in the month of July 1984 orally and thereafter in writing. It was contended that whether Talaq had taken place or not is required to be proved by evidence. The Court referred paragraph 310 (not to be called as section since Mulla's Mohammadan Laws is not enactment) where it is stated that Talaq may be effected (i) orally or (ii) by a written document called Talaqnama.After quoting the provisions the court held (para 6 of Cri LJ) :