S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in Crl. R. P. No,74 of 1999 as well as the order passed in crl. M. P. No. 1850 of 1992 in M. C. No. 21 of 1986 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate, Kurnool.

( 2 ) A brief resume of background of facts is necessary.

( 3 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the petitioner married the 1st respondent herein under Muslim Law. The petitioner herein presented M. C. No. 21 of 1986 claiming maintenance against the 1st respondent herein. The lower Court granted maintenance. Some amounts were said to have been paid. The order has become final. The 1st respondent herein presented Crl. M. P. No. 1850 of 1992 in M. C. No. 21 of 1986 for cancellation of the maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner. The said petition was dismissed on 4-3-1994 and the matter was carried in revision being C. R. P. No. 36 of 1994 before the III Additional Sessions judge at Kurnool. The HI Additional Sessions judge, Kurnool, through his order dated 23-6-1995, remanded the matter to adjudicate the Crlm. P. No. 1850 of 1992 afresh. Thereupon the Judicial First Class Magistrate, kurnool set aside the order granting maintenance on the ground that the talaq comes into effect only from the date of petition i. e. , from 5-11-1992. The petitioner, who is aggrieved, has carried the matter in revision in C. R. P. No. 74 of 1994 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, kurnool.

( 4 ) THE learned II Additional District judge, Kurnool confirmed the order of the lower Court cancelling the maintenance from the date of communication of talaq i. e. , from the date of the petition in Crl. M. P. No. 1850 of 1992. Thereupon the wife has preferred this Criminal Petition seeking quashing of the proceedings.

( 5 ) THE petitioner s Counsel mainly assails the order on the ground that there was no divorce and it had not been raised during the proceedings in M. C. No. 21 of 1986. It is also contended that even assuming that the divorce is granted, she is entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period and that the question of cancelling of the order passed in M. C. No. 21 of 1986 does not arise.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contends that the divorce is not disputed and when once there is divorce, the question of payment of maintenance beyond the iddat period does not arise. The amount awarded up to that period is a reasonable one.

( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that it is not a fit case where inherent powers can be exercised to quash the proceedings since the lower Court has rightly cancelled the order which has been passed granting maintenance and there is no need to set aside the order passed by the lower Court.

( 8 ) ADVERTING to the said contentions, the 1 st respondent has presented the Crl. M. P. No. 1850 of 1992 for cancellation of the maintenance order in M. C. No. 21 of 1986 on the sole ground that he has given divorce to his wife. It is also alleged that the same was communicated to the petitioner herein by registered post later and also remitted the mehar amount of Rs. 525/- to the petitioner- wife on 9-6-1990 and Rs. 500/- towards iddat period maintenance on 19-6-1990. The petitioner has contended that the act of giving divorce as well as validity or otherwise of the talaq was not decided by the lower court. It is also contended by the 1st respondent s Counsel that there is no need to give any decision regarding the validity of talaq. The lower Court observed that giving talaq has not been raised in maintenance proceedings. It appears that a talaq was given before the Khaji s office on 23-10-1992 under Ex. P-4, and Ex. P-5 is translated copy of Ex. P-4. The lower Court felt that there is no communication of talaq to the wife. The lower Court has proceeded to deal with the case on the premise that talaq would be effective only from the date of presentation of the petition into Court i. e. , 5-11-1992. Hence it presumed the validity o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document