Gulam Rashid Ali vs Kaushar Parveen & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3755 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                     Date of Reserve: July 28, 2010
                                                     Date of Order: 12th August, 2010
+ Crl.M.C.No. 2094/2010
%                                                                      12.08.2010

        Gulam Rashid Ali                                  ... Petitioner
                                 Through: Mr. K.M.M.Khan, Advocate

                Versus


        Kaushar Parveen & Anr.                                 ... Respondents



JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?    Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                   Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                           Yes.

JUDGMENT

By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 2 nd

March, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate granting

maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month for the minor daughter of the petitioner

who is living separate from the petitioner with the mother. The sole contention

raised by the petitioner before this Court is that in view of Section 3(1)(b) of

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 the right of the

child to claim maintenance from father after two years of divorce of the mother

does not survive. I consider that this contention is a baseless contention.

Even a wife who has been divorced under Muslim Law is entitled to claim

maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after Iddat period. Supreme Court in

Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan Crl.Appeal No. 2309/2009 decided on 4th

December, 2009 had observed that petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C would

be maintainable (for the wife) before Family Courts so long as she does not

remarry and the amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125

Cr.P.C. cannot be restricted for Iddat period only. The Supreme Court

observed that the cumulative effect of reading of judgments of Supreme Court

in Danial Latifi & Anr. v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740 and Iqbal Bano v.

State of UP & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 785 makes it crystal clear that even a

Muslim divorced woman would be entitled to claim maintenance from a

Muslim husband till she has not married. This being a beneficial piece of

legislation, the benefit must accrue to the divorced Muslim women.

2. I consider that the benefit under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be

denied to a minor daughter because of any restrictive provision contained in

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

The petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.

August 12, 2010                         SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn