MOHAMMED YASEEN Vs. JAREENA BANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr. P. C. by the non-petitioner wife. THE petitioner and nonpetitioner are Muslim and, therefore, are governed by Muslim Law. THEy are governed by the provisions under Section 125 Cr. P. C. to limited extent also.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-petitioner in her statement recorded in one case No. 38/2003 in the court of District Judge, Bhilwara she gave her statement on oath that she is Post Graduate and she is doing stitching work and is maintaining herself and her son. She also stated that the petitioner is only a Secondary pass. In her cross-examination, she specifically stated that it is wrong to say that she cannot maintain herself. Even she stated that she did not file any petition for getting maintenance from the petitioner. ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-petitioner sought complete relief under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for maintenance but as per the personal law, the non-petitioner could have been awarded maintenance upto 'iddat' period, which has been awarded by the trial court vide order dated 31. 10. 2002. The non- petitioner availed the opportunity to get more maintenance in view of the observation made in the order dated 31. 10. 2002 and moved an application under Section 3 of the Act of 1986 and got order in her favour, which was set aside by the revisional court and that order has not been challenged by the non-petitioner, therefore, all her rights have already been stand decided. In view of the above reasons, the filing of another petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. is nothing but an abuse of the process of court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of Section 5 of the Act of 1986, the petition filed by the non-petitioner under Section 125 Cr. P. C. is not maintainable.