Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.98 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Karim Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs Shehnaz Karim Shaikh & Others on 11 July, 2000
8. Once we come to the conclusion that talaqnama is valid, the divorced Muslim wife is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125, Chapter IX, Criminal Procedure Code. The law is no longer res Integra on this issue and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Karim AR Shaikh v. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh (supra), has categorically answered the reference by laying down that after the commencement of the said Act, Muslim divorced wife cannot apply for maintenance under the provisions of Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure Code and it is only under Section 5 of the said Act that by agreement husband and divorced wife can approach Magistrate under Chapter IX, Cr.P.C. The entitle scheme of the said Act has been examined by the Full Bench for coming to the said conclusion. Therefore, from the date of talaq, the application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. In the case under consideration, the application for maintenance was filed on 7.2.1991 and talaqnama was given on 17.7.1991 and till then the respondent No. 1 had not been divorced and as such her application which was filed on 7.2.1991 would be maintainable till the divorce was pronounced by talaqnama dated 17.7.1991. The Magistrate after having come to the conclusion in his judgment dated 5.4.1994 that in the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that non-applicant, namely the respondent No. 1 before had ill-treated the applicant. However, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the respondent, namely the present applicant had refused and neglected to maintain the applicants. There findings on refusal and neglected to maintain have not been disturbed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and these findings being of fact, cannot be interfered in an application under Section, 182, Cr.P.C. In view of the same, the respondent No. 2 would be, entitled to maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month till the date of talaqnama that is to say 17.7.1991 from the date of application, namely 7.2.1991.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986
Saira Bano vs Mohd. Aslam Ghulam Mustafa Khan ... on 28 September, 1999
4. Learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 urged before me that the application in question, was filed on 7.2.1991 and the question of maintainability was raised in reply dated 5.3.1992. Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 stated that there are concurrent findings of Courts below and this Court should not be interfered under Section 482, Cr.P.C; Learned Advocate for the applicant placed reliance on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Saira Bano v. Mohd. Aslam Ghulam Mustafa Khan Sherwani and Anr. (supra), and judgment of Single Judge in Shaikh Mobin s/o Shaikh Chand v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in 1996 (1) Mh. LJ 810, in support of his contention that mere pleading in the written statement does not prove the factum of divorce.
Banu Wife Of Kutubuddin Sulemanji ... vs Kutubuddin Sulemanji Vimanwala on 5 October, 1994
In this respect, reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the applicant on the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Banu and Anr. v. Kutubuddin Sulemanji Vimanwala (supra), wherein it is held that the wife should be in the state of tuhr at the time of talaq and divorce by husband to his wife cannot be declared void on the ground that the husband has not proved that wife was in her periods on the date of talaq particularly when wife is staying away from him.
Section 182 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Nachhattar Singh vs Harjinder Kaur on 17 February, 1995
In Nachhattar Singh v. Harjinder Kaur and Anr., reported in 1995 Cri. LJ 2726=II (1995) DMC 24, it has been observed, that the jurisdiction is vested in the Trial Court to award the maintenance from the date of the order or from the date of the application. It had to be exercised in a reasonable manner keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further pointed out that the special reasons need not to be recorded but reason for arriving at the conclusion have to be given since the provision has been enacted to help the destitute wife or children so as to prevent vagrancy by compelling a person to support his wife and child by providing cheap and speedy remedy. I have absolutely no reason to take a different view of the matter and I record my respectful concurrence with the views of the learned Judges in the above rulings.