ABDUL HAMID Vs. ASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the judge at dated July,26 1989, passed by the Session Judge, in Merta in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 1984, arising out of the order dated May 24, 1984, passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta.

(2.) MST . Asia was married to Abdul Hamid, who divorced her on May 29, 1970. After her divorce, Mst Asia moved an application under Section 125, Cr. PC. for grant of maintenance to her. That application, filed by Mst. Asia was allowed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Merta, by his order dated May 16.1970. The learned Magistrate awarded Rs. 75/ - per month as the maintenance to Mst. Asia Disatisfied with the order passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Merta, allowing the maintenance allowance of Rs. 75/ - per month, Abdul Hamid filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, and the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, by his order dated July 23. 1979, partly allowed the revision petition, maintained the order granting maintenance but reduced the amount of the maintenance from Rs. 75/ - per month to Rs. 50/ - per month. This order became final as it was not challenged before the High Court and both the parties remained contended with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. On September 19, 1990 Mst. Asia moved an application under Section 127 Cr. PC. for enhancement of the amount of the maintenance. Abdul Hamid, also, moved an application under Section 127 Cr. P.C. on July 16, 1981. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated May 24, 1989, decided both these applications and held that Mst. Asia, the wife, is entitled for a maintenance of Rs. 50/ - per month for fourteen months only. He further held that Mst. Asia is entitled for an amount of Rs. 600/ - as MEHAR. He, therefore directed the husband Abdul Hamid to deposit the amount of Rs. 1300/ - within a period of seven days from the dated of the order. The learned Magistrate, also held that after the payment of this amount, Mst. Asia will not be entitled for any further maintenance. It was stated at the bar that this amount of Rs. 1300/ - has been paid by Abdul Hamid to Mst. Asia, Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Merta Mst. Asia filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated July 26, 1989, allowed the revision petition filed by Abdul Hamid and set -aside the order passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and held that Mst. Asia is not entitled for the maintenance of Rs. 50/ - per month and she is only entitled for the MEHAR amount of Rs. 600/ -. In view of the provisions of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Right of Divorce) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1986'), the Sessions Judge dismissed the application under Section 127 Cr, P.C. filed by Mst. Asia. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after coming into force of the Act of 1986, a Muslim divorced woman is not entitled to any maintenance from her former husband after the Iddat period which amount the husband has already paid. He has further contended that according to Section in 3 of the Act of 1989, a divorced woman shall be entitled to a reasonable and fair protection and maintenance which is to be paid to her within the Iddat period, by her former husdand and after expiry of the Iddat period no amount is payable by the husband. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and contended that the order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. became final much before the Act of 1986 came into force and as there is no repealing clause in the Act, therefore, the order passed under Section 125 Cr. P.C, prior to coming into force of the Act of 1986. is not affected by this Act and the non -petitioner Mst. Asia is entitled to get the maintenance allowance, which was already granted by the competent Court.