Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: maintenance cancelled in Idris Ali And Etc. Etc. vs Ramesha Khatun And Etc. Etc. on 8 March, 1988Matching Fragments
13. Section 127 provides for change of monthly allowance and it can be made on proof of the change of the circumstances of any person, but the rate of Rs. 500/- has been put as highest amount and this amount should not be exceeded. Sub-section (2) gives the power to the Magistrate to cancel or vary the order under Section 125 in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court.
14. Sub-section (3) of Section 127 is for the purpose of the present case. It provides that in case of divorce, the Magistrate can cancel the order of maintenance and so also on her remarriage under Clause (a) and further under Clause (b) if the divorce is proved and it is further proved that woman has received the sum, she is entitled to under the customary law payable to her on divorce, then the order of maintenance can be cancelled. The cancellation can be from either of two dates provided in Sub-clauses (i) and (ii).
15. Sub-clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 127 further provides the power to obtain a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights of maintenance after her divorce. In all these cases, the order of maintenance can be cancelled by the Magistrate.
16. Section 128 provides the procedure for enforcement of order of maintenance.
17. We are here concerned with the new Act of 1986. It is open for the Muslim divorced woman to obtain an order of maintenance against her husband and also who are alleged to have been divorced thereafter. Obviously in respect of the new Act of 1986, a Muslim husband can move an application under Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 127 Cr.P.C. as it provides for divorce and further provides that the order of maintenance earlier awarded can be cancelled in case of such divorce.
18. The above position of law is so clear that it does not require any further elaboration. In fact the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the woman was divorced and it was further proved that such amount 'Mahr' has been paid and accordingly the order directing the husband to pay the maintenance should have been cancelled:
19. Be that as it may, we are to take into account that the new Act of 1986, was framed for the purpose of protecting the rights of Muslim women. The controversy raised by the judgment of the Apex Court in Md. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 Cri LJ 875.: (AIR 1985 SC 945), by which it was declared, that Clause (b) of explanation to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. contains no words of limitation to justify the exclusion of Muslim women from itsscope. The Court cannot excluded, (b) of the said Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. for them. In Zahara Khatun v. Md. Ibrahim, AIR 1986 SC 587 : (1986 Cri LJ 556) the Supreme Court further held that on dissolution of marriage under Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 a Muslim woman is also entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.