HAROON RASHID Vs. REQUEEBA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 25.8.1995 passed in criminal revision No. 199 of 1994 (R), this matter was referred by the learned Single Judge to a larger Bench, on the ground that two Single Bench Judgments of this Court reported in 1987 PLJR 65 -Md. Yunus V/s. Bibi Phenkani alias Tasrun Nisa and Anr. and Anr. reported in 1989 (2) BLJ 671 -Md. Arif V/s. Bibi Jamila Khaton were of conflicting view regarding determination and interpretation of Sec. 3(1)(a) and Sec. 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act ') and regarding period of maintenance to a divorced Muslim Women. As the same question was involved in Criminal Revision No. 73 of 1994 (R), by order dated 18.10.1995, another learned Single Judge ordered that it would be heard alongwith Criminal Revision No. 199 of 1994 (R).

(2.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 199 of 1994 (R) was filed against the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by Sri U.N. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 57 of 1985 by which he ordered petitioner husband to pay maintenance allowance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from 11.11.1985 to 10.7.1988 (date of divorce) at the rate of Rs. 400 (rupees four hundred) per month amounting to Rs. 12, 800 and at the rate of Rs. 600 (six hundred) per month for next three months (Iddat period) with direction that interim maintenance allowance granted earlier @ Rs. 200 and ' Rs. 600 respectively would be adjusted. The opposite party -divorced wife was also ordered to be paid Rs. 75, 000 in lump sum for he further maintenance beyond iddat period under Sec. 3 of the Act. The petitioner husband challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that under the Act, the husband has no liability to pay maintenance to his divorced wife beyond the period of iddat, as provided under Sec. 3 of the Act and that the impugned order was passed without considering the fact that the opposite patty -wife, had withdrawn the maintenance amount for the period of iddat period and that the impugned order was contrary to the remand order dated 12.11 -1990 passed by the High Court in Cr. Misc. No 347 of 1990 (R).

(3.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 73 of 1994 (R) was filed by the petitioner wife Ayesha Khatoon against the order dated 19. 2.1994 passed by the Third Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1992, which was preferred by her husband, Ali Ashaf against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 45 of 1988 on 27.11.1991 under Sec. 3 of the Act. The Additional Judicial Commissioner had set aside the order allowing Rs. 500 per month as maintenance to the petitioner and had also reduced the sum of Rs. 10, 000 to Rs. 5000, which was allowed to the petitioner in lieu of articles given to her at the time of her marriage.