MUSSTT ARAB CHANI BEGUM Vs. MOHAMMAD AZIZUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Musstt. Arab Chani Begum hereinafter referred as the petitioner, filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C., before the Addl. C.J.M., Kamrup, Guwahati being 17m/83 stating inter alia that she was married to the respondent Azizur Rahman, hereinafter referred as respondent, as per Muslim Sariat and thereafter they lived as husband and wife. Out of the said wedlock two sons were born of her but one of the sons died. The respondent has got another wife and after 4/5 years of the marriage he started ill-treating the petitioner and ultimately drove her out from the house along with her minor son. The petitioner has got no means of livelihood and accordingly she prayed for grant of maintenance to herself and her minor son. Vide order dated 3-1-86 learned SDJM, Rangia granted maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for herself and another sum of Rs. 100/- per month for the minor child.

(2.) The respondent preferred a revision petition against the said order of maintenance but the revision was dismissed. The respondent filed another revision, being Criminal Revision No. 333/87 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and vide order dated 5-1-93 this Court directed both the parties to appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati for reconciliation. It was further provided that if the reconciliation fails the respondent husband was to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. The reconciliation proceeding, however failed and the respondent continued to pay the maintenance. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance and the amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month to the wife and Rs. 200/- per month for the child.

(3.) The respondent filed Misc. Case No. 205/97 under Section 127, Cr. P.C. on 17-7-97 praying for cancellation of the order of maintenance on the ground that in the meantime the respondent has divorced the petitioner some time in the year 1995 and hence under the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, for short, the Act, the petitioner wife is not entitled to any maintenance. The petitioner filed written objection and both the parties led evidence. Thereafter vide the impugned order dated 20-5-98 passed in Misc. Case No. 205/97 the Principal Judge, Family Court cancelled the maintenance granted to the petitioner wife only; so far the minor son is concerned the respondent was directed to pay till the minor attains the majority. The present revision is directed against the said order of cancellation of maintenance to the petitioner wife.