FARUKH MOHAMMED Vs. SHENAJ BANO AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14-7-2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner (for short, "the trial Court$" hereinafter) in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 336/2003, whereby the trial Court granted maintenance @ Rs. 1500.00 per month in favour of non-petitioner No.1 and @ Rs. 1000.00 per month in favour of non-petitioner No.2, the minor son of the parties.

(2.) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17-4-1999 at Bikaner in accordance with Muslim customs and rites. Out of that wed-lock, non-petitioner No.2 Sahil was born to non-petitioner No.1 from the loin of the petitioner. The non -petitioner No.1 came with the case that the petitioner used to cruelly treate the non-petitioner No.1 for demand of dowry and ultimately turned out her from the matrimonial house and left her at her parental house. The non-petitioner filed an application under Sec. 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance to her and her minor son stating therein that the petitioner, despite having sufficient income, failed to maintain them and neglected them. The petitioner came with the case that he had already given "Talaq" to the non-petitioner No.1 on 9-8-2002 by sending registered letter which the non-petitioner refused to accept and thereafter he sent letter through Crown Currier on 4-9-2002 and also sent a letter by post to the non-petitioner No.1 communicating that he has given Talaq to her. The non-petitioner No.1 categorically denied having received any such letter. The learned trial Court, placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shamim Khan Vs. State of U.P. and another 2004 (2) Cr.L.R. 932 , and a decision of this Court in Gulam Mohammed Vs. Acchu, 2005 (1) Cri. Court Cases 250 : 2004 (21) AIC 348 (SC) : 2002 (Suppl.) ACC 484 , allowed the application under Sec. 125 of the Code and awarded maintenance to the non-petitioners No.1 and 2, as noticed above.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the impugned order. The provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not apply so far as granting maintenance to minor children is concerned, thus, the non petitioner No.2 Sahil (minor son of the parties) is entitled for maintenance and the trial Court is justified in awarding maintenance to him. So far as non-petitioner No. 1 Shenaj Bano is concerned, she is entitled for maintenance on being established that she is unable to maintain herself as having no independent source of earning.