NAZIR Vs. MANJURA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated June 6, 1990, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangariya, by which the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance to Mst. Manjura, Zulfkar and Jalkayja -Tak -Farun.

(2.) MST . Manjura filed an application Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. against Nazir for grant of maintenance for herself as well as for her son Zulfkar and daughter Jalkayja -Tak -Farun. The learned Magistrate by his order dated June 6, 1990, allowed the maintenance allowance to the wife Manjura from the date of application upto September 29, 1986, the date on which she was given divorce by the husband Nazir in the Court and also awarded maintenance to the son and daughter @ Rs. 200/ -per month each. It is against his order that the present petition has been filed. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has given divorce to his wife Manjura and, therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance to her. It is, also, contended that as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1986'), he is liable to make payment only for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of the children and as both children are more than two years of age, he is not liable to make payment to them, also. It is, also, contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the amount of maintenance awarded to the non -petitioners is highly excessive and the order has not been passed keeping in view the financial resources of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the learned lower Court, granting maintenance to the wife as well as to the children, may be quashed. The leaned Counsel for the non - petitioners, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court. 4 . I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 5. The learned lower Court has awarded the maintenance to the wife from the date of the application upto the date when she was divorced by her husband. It is the liability of the husband to make arrangement for the maintenance of the wife Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The Act of 1986 is applicable in the cases only where the wife is divorced by the husband and according to the Act of 1986, the husband is liable to pay the maintenance upto the period of IDDAT. The divorce in the present case was given by the husband Nazir on September 28, 1986, and the wife was even entitled for the amount of maintenance for the IDDAT period, also, which was not awarded by the learned lower Court. The order passed by the learned lower Court on this count, i.e., the awarding of the maintenance to the wife with effect from July 24, 1985 to September 29, 1986, does not require any interference and cannot be said to be in any way, incorrect or illegal. 6. So far as the question of grant of maintenance to the children is concerned, suffice it to say that it is the obligation of the father to maintain his children till they attain the age of puberty and in the case of daughter it is the obligation of the father to maintain her till she is married. It is the obligatory duty of the father, both Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. as well as under the Muslim Personal Law to provide maintenance to his children. The obligation to maintain the children is the personal obligation of the father. The right of the children to get the maintenance from their father is a sacred and independent right of the children. The right of maintenance Under Section 3 of the Act of 1986 is a right of divorced Muslim woman and not of the children to get the maintenance for two years from the date of the children and it is incidental to the divorce. This provision contemplates the right to the divorced wife to get maintenance upto the age of two years of the birth of the children and this has nothing to do with the independent right of the children to be maintain by their father under the Muslim Law. This right is guaranteed to the divorced wife to get the maintenance during the weaning period. In this view of the matter, in my view, the learned lower Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the order granting the maintenance to the non -petitioners. The amount awarded to the non -petitioners @ Rs. 200/ -pcr months each child, in the present stale of the circumstances cannot be said to be excessive, looking to the inflation of the prices of the essential commodities. The income of the petitioner Nazir is about Rs. 2000/ -to Rs. 3000/ -per mensem and, therefore, even looking from the financial resources of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the learned lower Court has committed any error in awarding Rs. 200/ -per month each, to the non -petitioners, rather the amount awarded as the maintenance to the non -petitioners is on the lower side. 7. Consequently, this revision petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.