SYED PARVEZ ALI Vs. NAHILA AKHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 30.5.2015 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.184/2015 confirming the order dated 28.2.2015 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.126/2009, allowing the application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent as lump sum maintenance and Rs.51,000/- towards an amount of Mahr, this petition has been preferred.

(2.) The facts unfolded to file present case is the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 29.10.1999 as per the customs of Muslim Laws at Bhopal. It is not in dispute an amount of Rs.51,000/- has been settled towards Mahr. After the marriage, from the wedlock, two kids were born who are residing with the wife. It is also not in dispute that various proceedings either under the provisions of Indian Penal Code or of Dowry Prohibition Act and Domestic Violence Act have been contested by the parties. The husband by communication dated 26.10.2008, received on 6.11.2008 to wife gave the divorce to her. However, being "divorced woman", the application under Section 3 was filed asking maintenance to the tune of Rs.15 lacs and a sum of Rs.51,000/- towards Mahr and expenses for the period of Iddat and also to return the articles.

(3.) The husband by filing the written statement denied the averments regarding divorce inter alia contending, the divorce was not given thrice, however, it is revocable. The husband made the communication of divorce to the wife with intent to warn and improve her conduct. Therefore, the divorce given to her stating Talak once would not be the valid divorce, however, the respondent would not fall within the purview of "divorced woman" and the application filed under Section 3 of the Act is not tenable.