MOHAMMAD ALI BHAT Vs. SHAFEEQA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Sec. 482 of the Cr. P. C challenging order dtd. 15/4/2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam, whereby, in a proceeding under Sec. 488 of the J&K Cr. P. C, the learned Magistrate has granted a monthly interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2000.00 to respondent No.1 and Rs.1500.00 to respondent No.2. Challenge has also been thrown to order dtd. 11/12/2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, whereby, while dismissing the revision petition against the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge has upheld its validity.

(2.) Respondent No.1 claims herself to be the wife and respondent No.2, claims to be the daughter of the petitioner. They filed a petition under Sec. 488 of the J&K Cr. P. C before the learned trial Magistrate alleging therein that the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain them. The petitioner herein filed his objections to the application and besides urging other grounds, he has submitted that in terms of document dtd. 10/1/2019 issued by Anjuman Sharie Shiaan, Jammu and Kashmir, responded No.1 herein has been divorced. The learned trial Magistrate while passing the impugned order granting interim maintenance in favour of the respondents, observed that the question whether the petitioner has pronounced Talaq upon respondent No.1 is a factual issue and the same can be determined only after evidence is led. Till such time, the learned trial Magistrate, granted interim maintenance in favour of both the respondents.

(3.) The impugned order passed by the learned trial Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision petition before Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam, on the ground that a divorced Muslim wife is not entitled to maintenance and, as such, respondent No.1 herein could not have been granted interim maintenance by the learned trial Magistrate. The Revisional Court while passing the impugned order upheld the validity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate and it was observed that validity of the communication dtd. 10/1/2019 can be decided only after the trial of the case and till that time, respondent No.1 cannot be left in the state of vagrancy.