Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. On behalf of the husband, Shri Rizwy, Advocate, submitted that the trial Court has arrived at a finding that no cruelty, refusal or neglect has been proved by the wife against the husband. It, however, found that the Khuallanama agreement (Ex. 13) sent by the wife, appears to have been issued by her or that the contents were not written by her. That burden, she has not discharged. The trial Court, however, found that the wife being a divorcee and section 125 overrides the personal law even if it was a divorce by Khullanama, she was entitled to maintenance as she was unable to maintain herself. According to Shri Rizwy, the order of the Sessions Judge that Exhibit 13 is duly proved and even though it may be a voidable document, the Criminal Court will hold the same to be valid till it is set aside by regular Civil Court. Shri Rizwy, however, fairly conceded that section 125 Criminal Procedure Code overrides Muslim personal law and even a divorcee under Khulalaq would be included in the definition of 'wife' appearing in Explanation (b) to section 125(1). But, he submitted that she must, in a proceeding under section 125, establish the ingredients of refusal and neglect on the part of the husband. According to him, the facts and circumstances of the case indicate that husband and wife are living separate by mutual consent and hence, wife is not entitled to maintenance under section 125(4) Criminal Procedure Code.