Allahabad High Court
Ikrar Ahmad vs State Of U.P. & Another on 2 July, 2015
Bench: Mukhtar Ahmad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1081 of 2012
Revisionist :- Ikrar Ahmad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Irfan,Anand Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Devashish Mitra
Hon'ble Mukhtar Ahmad,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 444 of 2007 ( Smt. Imrana Parveen Vs. Ikrar Ahmad), whereby maintenance allowance has been awarded to opposite party No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month from the date of moving application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record and impugned order too.
Undisputedly, revisionist Ikrar Ahmad was married with Opposite Party no.2- Smt. Imrana Parveen on 7.6.2015, but she was not taken to her matrimonial home, allegedly on account of dowry. Thereafter, Smt. Imrana Parveen filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C stating that the revisionist- Ikrar Ahmad has neglected her to maintain despite sufficient means while she is unable to maintain herself.
In the reply filed by the revisionist, it is asserted that Smt. Imrana Parveen had love affairs with some other person and acid attack was made on her and her face and other parts of the body were burnt but this fact was not disclosed and she was married with the revisionist suppressing these facts. He also submitted that he gave divorce to Smt. Imrana Parveen and in this situation as per provisions of the Muslim Law, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Copy of order of Sharia Court ,granting divorce has also been filed. Learned Family Court has granted Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance from the date of moving application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Assailing that judgment and order, the instant revision has been preferred.
The sole controversy in this revision is as to whether a divorced woman is entitled to get maintenance from her husband under section 125 Cr.P.C.?
The main contention of learned Counsel for the revisionist is that Smt. Imrana Parveen being divorced muslim lady, is not entitled for maintenance. On behalf of opposite party no.2, it is submitted that even after divorce, a Muslim lady is entitled, as has been observed by the Apex Court in Shabana Bano Vs. Imran Khan AIR 2010 SC 305.
I have considered rival contention of the learned Counsel for the parties. In Jubair Ahmad Kazi Vs. State of U.P. & another 2008(2) U.P. Cr. R. 389, this Court after considering the various decisions, relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Danial Latifi & another Vs. Union of India JT 2001 (8) SC 219, Kalim Ahmad Vs. Principle Judge Family Court, Faizabad and another 2011 (3) ACR 2875, it has been held that it is the moral duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife, even if she has been divorced, till she does not re-marry and the order of the High Court was affirmed. has held that a divorced woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C . In
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I come to the conclusion that Smt. Imrana Parveen-Opp.Party no.2 is entitled for maintenance and the learned Trial Court was within its jurisdiction in providing maintenance to her. There is no justifiable ground for making any interference in the order impugned. Considering the increasing cost-prices of the essential commodities the amount of Rs. 1000/- per month, cannot be held to be excessive, hence revision fails.
In the result, revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.7.2015
Shahid
