Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is retrospective in operation and applies to a woman who has been divorced by her husband even before the Code came into force, provided other conditions of that Section are satisfied.

GANGADHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision case is referred to a bench by our learned brother Madhusudan Rao, J. , on the ground that it Involves a question of considerable importance and is bare of authority.

( 2 ) THE question for our consideration is whether a woman who has-been divorced before the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the new Code) came into force, is entitled to claim maintenance under section 125 of the said code. The respondent, Mumtaz khatoon. was divorced by her husband, raza Khan, on 2-2-1974. The new Code came Into force on 1-4-1974. She filed a petition for maintenance under section 125 (I) of the new Code on 6-5-1974 before the Additional judicial First Class magistrate, Kurnool. The husband took a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable, since he had divorced his wife before the New Code came into operation and section 125 (1) of the new Code was not retrospective in operation. The learned Magistrate upheld his objection and dismissed that petition. Against that order the wife filed Criminal revision petition 20 of !974 before the additional Sessions judge, Kurnool. He allowed It holding that section 175 of the new Code was retrospective in operation and directed the Magistrate to dispose of the petition on merits. Questioning the validity of that order the husband has filed this revision in this court.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 125 of the new Code is prospective and not retrospective In operation and it applies only to a woman who has been divorced by her husband after the new Code came into force on 1-4-1974 but not to a woman who has been divorced before that date. It is urged that under the old code a divorced woman had no such right and, therefore, section 125 of the new Code Is only prospective In operation. In this connection, he referred to same passages from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (11th Edition, at page 204) and the decision In Satyanarayana v. Seetharamamma (F. B) (1) A I. R. 1963 a. P. 270 and Workmen of F. T. and R. Co. , v. The Management (2) AIR 1973 S. C. 1227. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that section 125 of the new Code is retrospective in operation and he also refer, red to certain passages in Principles of statutory Interpretation by G. P. Singh and the decision In Gunnl V. Babu Lal (3) air 1952 M. B. 131.)

( 4 ) FOR a proper appreciation of the question raised In this petition, It is neaessary to refer to sections 125 and 127 of the new Code in so far as they are relevant :-125. Order for maintenance of wives, Children and Parents (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain. (a) his wife, unable to maintain hereself, (b) x x x x (c) x x x x (d) x x x x a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole. . . . . . xx xx xx explanation. For the purposes of this chapter, (a) x x x x x (b) wife Includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. (2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance. 127 Alteration in allowance:- (I) x x x xx (?) Where It appears to the Magistrate that, In consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under Sec. 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly. (3) Where any order has been made under section 125 in favour of a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, the magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that- (a) the woman has, after the date of such divorce, remarried, cancel such order as from the date of her remarriage; (b) the woman has been divorced by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document