KALIU Vs. MAJIDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round of litigation by the husband apparently with a view to avoid payment of maintenance allowance awarded to the wife non-petitioner and two minor sons by a competent court under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, referred to as the Code). In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code, it is necessary to give relevant facts: The wife, non-petitioner herein, had filed an application under Sec. 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance for herself and the two minor sons in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kaman. This application was filed on 27th March, 1990, and the learned Magistrate vide his order dated Feb. 16, 1993 granted maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 500.00 per month and to the minor sons @ Rs. 300.00 each per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. March 27, 1990. This order was challenged in a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg. However, the revision petition was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide his order dated Nov. 4, 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner - husband approached this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code challenging the order of maintenance granted by the Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg. This petition was decided by this Court on May 26, 1994 and the same was dismissed. It shall be useful to reproduce the order of this Court passed on May 26, 1994 :

(2.) It appears that the wife non-petitioner initiated proceedings for the recovery of maintenance allowance and the learned Magistrate has issued warrant for arrest of the petitioner vide his order dated May 3, 1994 as he failed to make the payment of maintenance allowance. That order was also challenged before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deeg and who vide his order dated June 29, 1994 granted a conditional stay order staying execution of the arrest warrant on payment of half of the arrears of the maintenance allowance. However, the result of the revision petition has not been informed to this Court. Then the petitioner initiated the present proceeding by moving an application under Sec. 127 of the Code on June 27, 1994 whereby he has prayed that the wife should be paid maintenance allowance for the period of Iddat only and maintenance allowance to the two minor sons be reduced from Rs. 300.00per month to Rs. 10.00 each per month. In the application, he vaguely stated that he had divorced the wife non-petitioner on June 18, 1992 in accordance with Mohammedan Law. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated Aug. 12, 1994. This order is being challenged before this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code.

(3.) The only argument raised by the learned cousnel for the petitioner-husband was that after coming into force the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1586 (Act No. 255 of 1986) the wife was entitled to get maintenance for the period of Iddat only.