AINUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

(2.) This application is directed against the order dated 209.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 315 of 2007 by which the application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 u/s 125 Cr. P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 1000/- to the opposite party no.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is apparent error in the impugned order as the parties were never asked to produced an affidavit as to whether they would like to be governed under the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act or u/s 125 Cr. P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the opposite party no. 2 is a divorced muslim woman and therefore she cannot be able to claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr. P.C.