HASENARA BEGUM Vs. FAZAR AU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner assailed the impugned order dated 31.1.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. West Tripura. Agadala in Criminal Revision No. 28(4) 1996 filed by the respondent herein against the order dated 7.8.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sonamura. West Tripura, in Misc. Case No. 30 of 1995.

(2.) The petitioner being the married wife of the respondent filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class. Sonamura, West Tripura in Misc. Case No. 30 of 1995. The husband respondent contested the maintenance petition contending, inter alia, that during the pendency of the case the husband respondent divorced the wife petitioner and. as such in view of the related provision of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. 1986, the maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. The learned Magistrate held that the petitioner being a divorced wife of the respondent was entitled a maintenance of Rs. 3.000 only for the Iddat period and also Rs. 7.500 as Moharana (Dower). Aggrieved the husband preferred Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 31.1.1998 dismissed the revision. During the revision the present petitioner (wife) laid her claim to be paid, reasonable and fair provisionT and maintenance to be paid by her husband for her whole life but not for within Iddat period. But the learned Sessions Judge, rejected the claim as she did not prefer revision, against the order of the learned Trial Court. Hence, this present revision.

(3.) Though the petition is drafted and styled to be criminal revision under Sections 397/407 Cr. P.C. before the commencement of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner humbly approached the Court to treat the petition td be one under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in order to secure ends of justice on the ground that this petition involves substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. (hereinafter called the Act of 1986).