K RAZA KHAN Vs. MUMTAZ KHA TOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case is referred to a Bench by our learned brother Madhusudan Rao, J., on the ground that it Involves a question of considerable Importance and is bare of authority.

(2.) The question for our consideration is whether a woman who has-been divorced before the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the new Code) came into force, is entitled to claim maintenance under section 125 of the said code. The respondent, Mumtaz Khatoon. was divorced by her husband, Raza Khan, on 2-2-1974. The new Code came Into force on 1-4-1974. She filed a petition for maintenance under section 125 (I) of the new Code on 6-5-1974 before the Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. The husband took a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable, since he had divorced his wife before the New Code came into operation and section 125 (1) of the new Code was not retrospective in operation. The learned Magistrate upheld his objection and dismissed that petition. Against that order the wife filed Criminal Revision petition 20 of !974 before the Additional Sessions judge, Kurnool. He allowed It holding that section 175 of the New Code was retrospective in operation and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the petition on merits. Questioning the validity of that order the husband has filed this revision in this court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 125 of the new Code is prospective and not retrospective In operation and it applies only to a woman who has been divorced by her husband after the new Code came into force on 1-4-1974 but not to a woman who has been divorced before that date. It is urged that under the old Code a divorced woman had no such right and, therefore, section 125 of the new Code Is only prospective In operation. In this connection, he referred to same passages from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (11th Edition, at page 204) and the decision In Satyanarayana V. Seetharamamma (F.B) (1) A I.R. 1963 A. P. 270 and Workmen of F.T.& R.Co., V. The Management (2) AIR 1973 S.C. 1227. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that section 125 of the new Code is retrospective in operation and he also refer, red to certain passages in Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh and the decision In Gunnl V. Babu Lal (3) AIR 1952 M.B. 131.)