Bombay High Court
Rehana Begum Mohammed Hussain ... vs Shaikh Rafiq Shaikh Quadir on 23 November, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 Cr.Revn.Apln 18.2004 - [J]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIM. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 18 OF 2004
Rehana Begum D/o Mohammed Hussain
@ Khajabhai, Age : 30 Yrs.,
Occ. : Household, R/o : Angoori Bagh,
District : Aurangabad. ..... APPLICANT
ig VERSUS
Shaikh Rafiq s/o Shaikh Quadir
Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Service -
Driver, High Court,
Aurangabad. ...... RESPONDENT
.............................
Mrs. A.N.Ansari, Advocate for Applicant.
None for the non-applicant.
..............................
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23rd NOVEMBER,2016
.............................
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard Mrs. A.N.Ansari, learned Advocate
2 Cr.Revn.Apln 18.2004 - [J]
for the applicant. None appears for the non-
applicant.
3. The applicant has challenged the order
passed by the Family Court under section 3 (a) of the
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,
1986, by which the non-applicant is directed to pay to
the applicant Rs.500/- per month towards
maintenance for the Iddat period (3 months and 10
days), Rs.2051/- towards mehr and only Rs.25,000/-
towards reasonable and fair provision towards future
maintenance. The claim of the applicant is that the
Family Court should have directed the non-applicant
to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards reasonable and fair
provision for future maintenance.
4. It is not disputed that the applicant was
legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and then the
non-applicant had given divorce to the applicant. The
non-applicant has not disputed that he was working
as driver in the employment of the High Court, Bench
at Aurangabad as permanent employee. According to
3 Cr.Revn.Apln 18.2004 - [J]
the applicant, the non-applicant has opted for
voluntary retirement.
5. It is well established that while determining
the amount payable towards reasonable and fair
provision for future maintenance, the civil status of
parties, the age of the parties and the standard of life
of the husband should be taken into consideration and
the amount should be sufficient to enable the
divorced wife to maintain herself with dignity. Mrs.
Ansari, learned Advocate for the applicant has rightly
relied on the judgment given by the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Karim Abdul Rahman Shaikh
Vs. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh & Ors., reported in
2000 (3) Mh.L.J.555.
. Considering the fact that the non-applicant
was a permanent employee working as a driver on
the establishment of High Court, Bench at
Aurangabad and the fact that after giving divorce to
the applicant, the non-applicant has remarried and
had been maintaining his second wife, in my view, it
4 Cr.Revn.Apln 18.2004 - [J]
would be appropriate to direct the non-applicant to
pay to the applicant Rs.1,50,000/- towards
reasonable and fair provision of future maintenance.
. Hence, the following order.
(i) The non applicant is directed to pay
ig Rs.1,50,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Fifty
Thousand] to the applicant towards
reasonable and fair provision for future
maintenance of the applicant.
(ii) The amount shall be paid by the non
applicant to the applicant within 2 months
from this order. If the non-applicant fails
to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
[Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand] to the
applicant within 2 months, the non
applicant will be liable to pay interest on
the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- [Rupees
One Lakh Fifty Thousand] @ 9 % per
annum, the interest being chargeable from
5 Cr.Revn.Apln 18.2004 - [J]
today i.e. the date of this Judgment.
(iii) The impugned order is modified in the
above terms.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(v) ig In the circumstances, parties to bear their
own costs.
[Z.A.HAQ, J.]
KNP/Cr.Revn.Apln 18.2004 - [J]
