SHAIK RAJ MOHAMMED Vs. SHAIK AMEENA BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision case is filed under Section 125, 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the orders of grant of maintenance to the 1st respondents herein. The 1st respondent, admittedly, the wife of the petitioner filed a petition for maintenance in M.C. 84/80 and the order of maintenance was passed under section 125, Cr.P.C. on 27-2-1982. On 25-3-1988, an enforcement petition was filed as the petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of maintenance. Mr. Syed Shareef Ahmed, strenuously contends that the orders passed by the Court below are erroneous for the reason that the petitioner has divorced the 1st respondent in accordance with personal law on 10-6-1986 and that a such the order of maintenance, even though passed on 27-2-82 during the subsistence of the marriage, became inexecutable by reason of the subsequent enactment of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Concisely speaking, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Act is retrospective in operation and invalidates the order dated 27-2-1982 under which maintenance was granted in favour of the 1st respondent. Mr. Shareef also cites a decision in Usman Khan Bahamani v. Fathimunnisa Begum (FB), AIR 1990 AP 245 : (1990 Cri LJ 1364) but that has got no bearing on the facts of this case. Several provisions of the above Act have been scanned through and I am at a loss to find any non obstante clause which operates to invalidate the order of maintenance already passed before the commencement of the Act and had become final. I reject the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the above Act is retrospective in operation and that in its interpretation it can be stretched to make the order of maintenance passed much earlier, a non est. Therefore, I hold that the above Act is only prospective in operation and does not affect or invalidate the orders of maintenance which have been granted prior to the Act and have become final by the time the Act is passed.

(2.) In the circumstances, this petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

(3.) Revision dismissed.