TARABANO Vs. AYYUB KHAN QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dtd. 19/1/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Dholpur, whereby criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dtd. 3/2/2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bari on application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed qua petitioner No. 1 and the meager amount towards maintenance was awarded in favour of petitioners No. 2 and 3.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below have committed serious error of law in holding that since divorce has taken place between the petitioner No. 1 and the non-petitioner, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 was not entitled for maintenance after expiry of iddat period.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no legitimate evidence on record to establish that divorce has ever taken place between the petitioner No. 1 and non-petitioner. It was submitted that revisional Court while deciding the revision has although given one finding that no declaration given by the kazi has been produced in evidence, yet merely on the basis of oral evidence, it was assumed by the revisional Court that divorce has taken place. It is submitted that even otherwise, declaration of divorce cannot be made by the Criminal Court and admittedly there was no declaration by the Civil Court in any civil suit declaring that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and non-petitioner was dissolved.