RAISABEE Vs. SHAJAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 9. 8. 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Agar in Cr. Revision No. 52/2000 arising out of the order passed on 21. 1. 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Susner in Cr. Case No. 45/1997 thereby rejecting the application filed Under Section 127 (3) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) filed by the non-applicant Shajad for cancellation of the order of maintenance. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision, set aside the order of the JMFC and allowed the application made Under Section 127 (3) (b) of the Code.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that since the order of maintenance was passed in favour of the non-applicant Raisabee Under Section 125 of the Code by order dated 28. 1. 1985, now the same cannot be set aside under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Muslim Women Act for short) and she is entitled for receiving the maintenance as per order dated 28. 1. 1985. Learned Counsel has relied on a Division Bench decision passed in Munni Begum v. Abdul Sattar, 2001 (1) MPJR 144.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are as under: That, in the year 1984, the non-applicant Raisabee filed an application Under Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance against the non-applicant-husband Shajad. This application was finally decided by order dated 28. 1. 1985 in favour of the wife directing the husband to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month. On 10. 9. 1997, the applicant Shajad submitted an application Under Section 127 (3) (b) of the Code on the ground that in accordance with the Muslim custom on 12. 8. 1997, he divorced his wife by verbal declaration as well as in writing and also sent the Talaknama by Registered Post. He also submitted that in execution proceedings of maintenance amount he has deposited the settled Mehar amount of Rs. 500/- and maintenance amount of Iddat period. Now since he had divorced his wife and also deposited the Mehar amount and maintenance amount for Iddat period, the wife would not be entitled to recover maintenance amount in pursuance of the order passed by the Court below on 28. 1. 1985.