GULAM MOHAMMAD Vs. ACHHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revi-sion petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband (hereinafter referred to as the non-applicant) with the prayer that the order dated 10/2/2003 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur by which he allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife Smt. Achhu (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 500.00 p.m. to the applicant and Rs. 300.00 p.m. to minor daughter Naseem, be quashed and set-aside.

(2.) It arises in the following circumstances: On 12/4/1999, an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was filed by the applicant before the Family Court, Jodhpur stating inter-alia that she was married to non-applicant seven years back and out of that wedlock, a daughter, namely, Naseem was born, but her husband non-applicant was treating her with cruelty and forced her to leave her-in-laws house and since she had no means to maintain herself and minor daughter Naseem, therefore, she claimed maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,500.00 p.m. for herself and Rs. 1,000.00 p.m. for minor daughter Naseem total Rs. 2,500.00 p.m. A reply to the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was filed by the non-applicant husband on 7/7/1999 before the Family Court, Jodhpur admitting that the marriage between him and applicant took place and out of that wedlock, a minor daughter Naseem was born. It was further alleged by the non-applicant that the allegations levelled against him with regard to cruelty were baseless and on the contrary, the applicant wife had her-self left the house and thereafter, on 26/1/1996 he alongwith Satar (NAW 2) and Yasin (NAW3) went to the house of parents of applicant where she was lea-ving to bring her back, but the applicant in presence of NAW2 Satar and NAW3 Yasin refused to come with him and sought divorce and therefore, on that day, the non-applicant divorced her in pre-sence of these two witnesses and since the applicant now is a divorced wife, therefore, she is not entitled to mainte-nance allowance. Hence, it was prayed that the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr. P.C. be rejected. On behalf of the applicant, three witnesses were examined, namely, AWl applicant herself, AW2 Ramjan and AW3 Sarfuddin. From the side of non-applicant, three witnesses were examined, namely, NAW1 non-applicant himself, NAW2 Abdul Satar and NAW3 Yasin. After considering the entire mate-rial and evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur through impugned order dated 10/2/2003 allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- p.m. to the applicant and Rs. 300/- p.m. to minor daughter Naseem holding inter-alia :

(3.) In this petition, the main con-tention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that since divorce had taken place between the applicant and non-applicant, therefore, the applicant wife is not entitled to maintenance. He has placed reliance on the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986) and submitted that the applicant wife is entitled to maintenance upto the period of Iddat and after Iddat period, she is not entitled to maintenance.