R.BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE
RANA NAHID @ RESHMA @ SANA – Appellant
Versus
SAHIDUL HAQ CHISTI – Respondent
Seeking maintenance by a Muslim woman, including a divorced Muslim woman, is primarily governed by the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. According to the Act, such applications are to be filed before a Magistrate of the First Class exercising jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in the area where the divorced woman resides (!) (!) (!) . The Act explicitly confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Magistrate, and it does not mention or include the Family Court as a forum for such applications (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, were enacted to provide a specialized and expedient procedure for maintenance claims and explicitly specify the Magistrate as the competent authority (!) (!) . The jurisdiction of the Family Court, established under the Family Courts Act, 1984, is different and is generally applicable to family disputes, including matters related to marriage, divorce, and maintenance, but only within the scope and jurisdiction conferred by that Act (!) (!) .
Importantly, the Act does not conferring jurisdiction on the Family Court to entertain applications under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The jurisdiction is specifically vested in the Magistrate of the First Class, and the Act’s scheme indicates that applications under this Act are to be made to the Magistrate, not the Family Court (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Additionally, the jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain such applications is further limited by the provisions of the Family Courts Act, which explicitly restricts the Court's jurisdiction to matters enumerated therein, and does not include proceedings under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, seeking maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, is admissible before a Magistrate of the First Class, and the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such applications unless specifically conferred by other statutes or circumstances. The proper forum for such claims is the Magistrate’s Court designated under the Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
R. Banumathi, J.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 295 of 2009 in and by which High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent thereby setting aside the order passed by the Family Court which has converted the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. into Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and also setting aside the maintenance amount awarded to appellant No.1.
2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of this appeal are that the marriage between appellant No.1-Rana Nahid @ Reshma @ Sana and respondent Sahidul Haq Chisti was solemnized on 08-03-1998 as per the Muslim rites and appellant No.2-son was born out of the wedlock. Alleging that appellant No.1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment for additional dowry and that she was thrown out of matrimonial home, appellants filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the respondent. Thereafter, on 24-03-2008, appellant No.1 amended the petition on the basis of divorce given on 23-04-2008 by the respondent-Sahidul. The appellants aver
Iqbal Bano v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 785 – Distinguished [Para 3]
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and others (1985) 2 SCC 556 – Referred [Para 9]
Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India
Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan (2010) 1 SCC 666 – Relied [Para 15]
Anjum Hasan Siddiqui v. Smt. Salma B. AIR 1992 All 322 – Referred with Approval [Para 21]
Vijay Kumar Prasad vs. State of Bihar
Zohara Khatoon and Anr. vs. Mohd. Ibrahim
Md. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum and Others
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
D.K. Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries Ltd.
Lachhman Dass v. State of Punjab
Meenakshi Mills v. Vishvanatha Sastri
Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar
Iqbal Bano v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 785 – Relied [Para ]
Bangalore Water Supply vs. A. Rajappa
Tirath Singh vs. Bachittar Singh
Modern School v. Union of India reported in (2004) 9 SCC 741 – Relied [Para 78]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.