MUNNI ALIAS MUBARIK Vs. SHAHBAZ KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the applicant Munnibai alias Mubarik wife of the non-applicant Shahbaz Khan under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 4-12-2000 passed by the Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Cr. Revision No. 24/2000 granting maintenance to the applicant from the date of order dated 23-5-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur upto the date of divorce to her by the non-applicant dated 7-10-2000 at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred) 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 Denial Latifi and another V. Union of India [ (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 740] 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, Denial Latifi (supra) is not applicable. A divorced Muslim woman/wife cannot seek maintenance beyond IDDAT under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He supported the order passed by the Revisional Court relying on the judgment passed by this Court in Julekha Bi v. Mohammad Fazal [1999 (2) MPLJ 64].

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record as well as the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court Denial Latifi's case (supra) as well as by this Court in Julekha Bi's case (supra), this Court is of the view that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a divorced Muslim wife cannot claim maintenance beyond the IDDAT period or till her remarriage. In the judgment of Denial Latifi's case (supra), the question of validity of Sections 3 (1) (a) and 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was involved and while upholding the validity of the Act, the Supreme Court, in para 36 ruled as follows: