Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shakir Khan vs Shama Bano And Ors on 11 August, 2011
In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench At Jaipur SB Criminal Revision Petition No.1555/2008 Shakir Khan Vs. Shama Bano & others Date of order 11.8.2011 HON'BLE DR. MEENA V. GOMBER, J. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal, for petitioner
Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for non petitioners This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (husband) against his wife non petitioner no.1 and two minor children. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Kota in Criminal Misc. Case No.646/2004 whereby the non petitioners' application filed under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance from the petitioner, was allowed and Rs.1500/- to the wife and 500/- each to the two children, was granted as maintenance from the date of filing of the application.
Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that during the course of present proceedings, non petitioner had lodged a criminal complaint for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against the petitioner. However, the parties arrived at a compromise and non petitioner wife executed an affidavit on 10.7.2006 stating that she had no objection if the petitioner was released on bail and that she had had received Rs.40,000/-. His argument was that since she had received Rs.40,000/- and had relinquished all her claims by writing Exhibit P.1, thus was estopped from claiming any more maintenance.
- 2 -
The second argument of the learned counsel for petitioner was that as per Shariyat Law, the petitioner had divorced her in April 2000 and that the non petitioner being a divorced Muslim woman, was to be governed by the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and not by Section 125 CrPC. Therefore, she was entitled to maintenance for iddat period only.
The third argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Judge, Family Court has granted maintenance from the date of application, even though there was no such evidence.
On the other hand the learned counsel for non petitioner no.1, supporting the order of learned trial court, submitted that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as the Judge, Family Court has rightly held divorce, as not proved in the light of Annexure-3 relied upon by the petitioner,and has also rightly held that the non petitioner no.1 and her children were being maintained with the help of other known people and, therefore, rightly allowed the maintenance from the date of filing of the application. Reliance was placed on the judgments of Sabra Shamim v. Maqsood Ansari, (2004) SCC 616, Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. & another, (2002) 7 SCC 518, and Danial Latifi & another v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740.
I have gone through the pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court. The Apex Court has approved the view of Gauhati High Court
- 3 -
in the matters of Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begum, (1981) 1 Gau LR 358, and Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khalique Laskar, (1981) 1 Gau LR 375, with regard to the requirement of talaq, as ordained by the Holi Quran, which are as under :-
(i) that talaq must be for a reasonable cause; and (ii) that it must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his. If their attempts fail, talaq may be effected.
The Apex Court, in Shamim Ara's case (supra), has laid down the proposition of law with regard to the requisites of a valid divorce, and it cannot be said that the petitioner has effected a valid divorce.
In view of the proposition of law laid down in Danial Latifi & another v. Union of India, and later in Sabra Shamim v. Maqsood Ansari (supra), I find that the learned Judge, Family Court has rightly granted Rs.1500/- for the wife and 500/- each for the two children, which in today's time of inflation, cannot be said to be unreasonable. So far as the receipt of Rs.40,000/- is concerned, that by no stretch of imagination, can be treated to be amount of settlement for the wife and two minor children for the rest of their life. It is clear from the documents that said amount was paid on 10.7.2006, when non petitioner gave her no objection for grant of bail.
No argument was advanced by the petitioner's counsel with regard to quantum of maintenance.
In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned, which may warrant interference by this court
- 4 -
in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The revision petition, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed.
(Dr. Meena V. Gomber) J.
db [All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.] Deepankar Bhattacharya P