Sekawat Shaukat Tadvi vs Rehana Budhan Tadavi & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 2740 Bom

                                                1                     Cri.WP.No.531.05.odt




                                                                                    
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                            
                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 531 OF 2005


    Sekawat S/o Shaukat Tadvi                                           Petitioner




                                                           
    VERSUS
    Rehane Budhan Tadavi and another                                    Respondents

Mr. A.M. Gholap, Advocate for the Respondents.

ig ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 10/06/2016

PER COURT :

1. On 07.06.2016, after the learned Advocate for the respondents

was heard, this Court had passed the following order :-

1. None appears for the petitioner even at the second call.

2. Mr. Gholap, leanred Advocate appearing on behalf of

the respondents submits that the issue raised in the petition is as to whether a Muslim woman can claim maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. or u/s 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. He submits that this petition was filed upon

being aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court dated 30/12/2004 thereby rejecting the application for stay to the judgment of the Trial Court. This Court refused interim relief to the petitioner despite the challenge to the claim of maintenance u/s 125.

3. Mr. Gholap points out that in the light of no interim relief having been granted by this Court, the Criminal Revision Application No.314/2004 has been disposed of

atu/June.2016

by order dated 17/04/2006, which is evidenced by the case status of the District and Sessions Court, Jalgaon

website.

4. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, AIR 2015 SC 2025 has finally concluded that a Muslim women can

claim maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that on the factual matrix of this matter, this petition is rendered infractuous. On the point of Law, this petition would be squarely covered by

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is the case of Shamima (supra).

5. Since none appears for the petitioner, stand over to 10/06/2016. If the petitioner does not remain present on the next date, I would consider this petition on its

merits.

2. None appears for the petitioner even today.

3. I have gone through the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, (supra) cited by Shri A.

M. Gholap. The issue is therefore, no longer res-integra that a

Muslim Woman/Divorce Woman can claim maintenance under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Shri Gholap has placed on record a printout of the Criminal

Revision Application No. 314 of 2004 filed by the petitioner herein,

atu/June.2016

obtained from the web site of the District and Sessions Court,

Jalgaon. The said printout indicates that the Criminal Revision

Application No. 314 of 2004 has been dismissed by order dated

17.04.2006. This petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved

by the refusal of the Revisional Court to grant stay to the Judgment

of the Trial Court.

5. Copy of said print out is taken on record and marked as

Exhibit "X" for identification.

6. In the light of the above, I find that this petition is rendered

infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.

7. The amount of Rs.3500/- deposited by the petitioner in this

Court vide order dated 14.12.2005 passed by this Court towards the

litigation expenses, shall be withdrawn by the first respondent along

with accrued interest.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

atu/June.2016