MANGTU ALIAS SALIM Vs. NOORJAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Mangtu alias Salim directed against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri dated 13. 6. 1996. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Trial Court dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner.

(2.) TO appreciate the question in controversy some of the facts which are not disputed can be delineated. The petitioner had been married to respondent Smt. Noorjahan. She had filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. The maintenance of Rs. 150.00 p. m. had been awarded to her besides Rs. 50.00 p. m. to the other respondent. Respondent Noorjahan filed an application under Sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr. P. C. alleging that the maintenance has not been paid and for the period 20. 11. 1991 to 20. 12. 1992 Rs. 2,600.00 have become due to her. Notice to the said petition had been issued to the petitioner. He contested the same. The main contention raised was that on 28. 1. 1990 in presence of the Biradari in order to settle the matter, the petitioner had divorced the respondent. The brother of the respondent and her father were present. The respondent was not ready to live with the petitioner. After the iddat period had expired the petitioner is governed by Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') and consequently the responent is not entitled to the maintenance.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner alleged that he had already divorced the respondent way back in the year 1990 and after the iddat period had expired in terms of the Act, the petitioner is not, liable to pay the maintenance. In support of his claim he referred to large number of precedents from different High Courts, namely to the case of Mst. Jameela v. Alimuddin, 1993 (3) RCR 538; Mohammad Yammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. , 1992 (2) RCR 371, and to the decision in the case of Sk. Abubakkar v. Mst. Ohidunnessa Bibi, 1993 (1) RCR 124. On the contrary reliance further was being placed by the respondent to the decision in the case of Maj. Rauf Ahmed v. Kanwar Anjam Jamali, 1990 (2) PLR 33. However, it becomes unnecessary to consider the said question as to the effect of the Act on the orders that have already been passed. This is because of the reason that the Act only applies if there is a divorce between the parties.