Bombay High Court
Md Rabbani Md Ismail vs Raisabee Shaikh Sadulla And Ors on 9 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 910.cr.wp.255.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 255 OF 2004
Mohd.Rabbani s/o Mohd.Ismail,
Age : 40 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Ardhapur, District Nanded.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 Raisabee d/o Shaikh Sadulla,
Age : 30 years, Occupation : Tailor
and Typist,
R/o C/o Shaikh Sadulla Shaikh Lal,
Chotti Galli, Kandhar,
District Nanded.
2 Mohd. Imran s/o Mohd. Rabbani,
Age : 7 years, Minor u/g of
Respondent No.1.
R/o As above.
3 The State of Maharashtra.
Through P.S. Ardhapur,
District Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner :Mrs.Ranjana D. Reddy.
APP for Respondent No.3/State : Shri S.G.Karlekar.
Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2 : Shri P R Katneshwarkar.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 09th June, 2016
Oral Judgment:
1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2003
*2* 910.cr.wp.255.04
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kandhar by which
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.51/2000 for maintenance filed by
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, has been allowed. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 17.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kandhar dismissing his Criminal Revision No.1/2004.
2 This petition was admitted on 21.09.2004 and interim relief
was not granted to the Petitioner. The application for stay was rejected by
order dated 13.04.2005.
3 Mrs.Reddy, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has
strenuously submitted that the Petitioner has now lost his job as a teacher
and has no source of income and as such, he is not able to pay Rs.500/- as
monthly maintenance to Respondent No.1 and Rs.250/- to Respondent
No.2, who is the son of the Petitioner.
4 It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 has now become
an adult and therefore, the maintenance is not required to be paid to him.
The Petitioner had divorced Respondent No.1/wife by uttering the word
"Talaq" and hence, unless Respondent No.1 seeks permission of the
Petitioner for seeking maintenance, the application under Section 125 of
*3* 910.cr.wp.255.04
the Code of Criminal Procedure could not have been filed.
5 The learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits
that presuming that the contention of the Petitioner is accepted as a truth,
without admitting the same, he has an independent source of income as
has been observed by the Trial Court in paragraph 7 of the impugned
order. He submits that the Petitioner having uttered the word "Talaq", was
not mentioned in his Say to the application filed by the wife. Later on, it is
sought to be contended that he had uttered the word "Talaq" on a
subsequent occasion. The Trial Court has dealt with this aspect and has
concluded that there was no pleading by the Petitioner as regards the
uttering of the word "Talaq" on the first occasion and insofar as the second
occasion is concerned, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he is
not aware about the date on which he had uttered the word "Talaq" for
the second time.
6 He further points out that the issue with regard to the
Talaqnama at Exhibit-39 was dealt with by the Trial Court and it was
established that the said Talaqnama has not been issued by any authorized
person who is competent and empowered to issue such a document.
7 I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
*4* 910.cr.wp.255.04
and have gone through the impugned judgments.
8 Insofar as the issue as to whether, a Muslim woman can claim
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or as to
whether, she is relegated to Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, has been dealt with by the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi
Vs Pyla Suri Demudu and another, (2011) 12 SCC 189. The Honourable Apex
Court has thus, settled the issue that a Muslim woman can seek
maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
9 The amount of maintenance granted by the Trial Court is at
the rate of Rs.500/- per month for Respondent No.1 and Rs.250/- per
month for Respondent No.2. The said order was passed on 08.12.2003.
Considering the passage of time and the devaluation of the Indian
currency, I do not find that the said amount could be said to be exorbitant.
I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the Trial
Court as well as the Revisional Court. This Criminal Writ Petition being
devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
