MURSLEEM Vs. BHOORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist is the husband and has challenged the judgment and order dated 11-11-1997 passed by Sri Chandra Bhan, Judge Family Court, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 104 of 1996 whereby he has allowed the application of the revisionist's wife-respondent under Section 125 Crpc granting maintenance al lowance to her at the rate of Rs. 200 per month with effect from 27-2-% and at the rate of Rs. 300 per month to their minorson.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) ON consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that Zeenat Fatma Rashid's case referred to supra relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent would not come to the rescue of the wife in the face of direct pronouncement of this Court in Abdul Shakoor's case referred to above. Abdul Shakoor's case was sub sequently followed by this Court in another case of Chunnoo Khan v. State, 1967 (4) ACC 243. Of course, in the writ ten statement the husband did not disclose any date of divorce, but he clearly averred the factum of divorce in the written state ment filed on 11-7-96 and he would be deemed to divorce respondent on the day of filing written statement. It means that in any case, he divorced his wife on the date when the written statement was filed.