SHAIK DADA SAHEB Vs. SHAIK MASTAN BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent herein had filed Maintenance Case No. 8 of 1987 against the petitioner herein on 19-4-1987 claiming maintenance for herself and for her children in the Court of the II Addl. Munsiff Magistrate, Gurazala. The said case was decided by the learned Magistrate on merits and awarded maintenance to the first respondent herein and her children. The 1st respondent herein was granted Rs. 200.00 per month by way of maintenance and two children were granted Rs. 100.00 each by way of maintenance. The said order was passed on 11-9-1989.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein filed a revision case No. 141/90 before the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur. The order of the Magistrate was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge on 12-7-1990. Thereafter the petitioner herein filed the proceedings u/S. 482 Cr. PC before this Court. This Court also dismissed the said petition with a direction that he may approach the Court of the Magistrate by filing the petition u/S. 127 Cr. PC. Accordingly the petitioner herein filed Criminal Petition No. 1143/90 u/S. 127 Cr. PC read with section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The said application filed by the petitioner herein was allowed on 26-4-91. Being aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent herein filed a Revision Petition No. 55/91 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Guntur, which was allowed. Against the said order, the present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the said order.

(3.) It appears from the record that during the pendency of M.C. No. 8 of 1987, the petitioner herein had divorced the first respondent herein on 2-4-1988 by pronouncing 'Talak'. Parties to this petition are Muslims by Caste. The petitioner herein has no grievance regarding the orders granting maintenance to his children. The main grievance was made by the petitioner herein that the wife i.e., the 1st respondent herein, is not entitled for maintenance after pronouncing 'Talak'. She is entitled for maintenance only up to the expiry 'Iddat' period. The contention raised by the petitioner herein before the Court of the Magistrate was accepted by the learned Magistrate but it was reversed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Petition No. 55/91 filed by the wife i.e., the first respondent herein.