LAWS(MPH)-2001-2-49

MUNNI MUBARIK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On February 11, 2001
MUNNI MUBARIK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the applicant Munnibai alias Mubarik wife of the Non-applicant Shabaz Khan under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 04.12.2000 passed by the Third AddI. Sessions Judge. Alirajpurin Cr. Revision No. 24/2000 granting maintenance to the applicant from the date of order dated 25.05.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur upto the date of divorce to her by the Non-applicant dated 07.10.2000 at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred, rupees) per month.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yashpal Rathore has submitted that in view of the recent judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India1 a divorced Muslim woman can seek and granted a maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure beyond the period of IDDAT till her remarriage. Against this, the counsel for the Non-applicant Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, (Danial latifis case Supra) is not applicable. A divorced Muslim Woman/wife cannot seek maintenance beyond IDDAT under Section 125 of the Code of Cr. Procedure. He supported the order passed by the Revisional Court relying on the judgment passed by this Court in Julekha Bi v. Mohammad Fazal.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record as well as the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court (Danial Latifis case supra) as well as by this Court in Julekha BiTs case (supra), this Court is of the view that under Section 125 of the Code of Cr. Procedure, a divorced Muslim-wife cannot claim maintenance beyond the INDAT period or till her remarriage. In the judgment of Danial Latifis case (supra), the question of validity of Sections 3(1) (a) and 4 of Muslim women (Protection of Rights in Divorce) Act, 1986 was involved and while upholding the validity of the Act the Supreme Court in para 36 ruled as follows: