JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, J.:---An important point which falls for determination in this revision is whether a Muslim wife who accrued a vested right to recover the amount of maintenance determined by a Court under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code stands affected by virtue of section 7 of the Muslim Women, (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as "the 1986 Act" if she is subsequently divorced ?. The facts and circumstances which are relevant for the just decision of this case are given in the following paras.

2. There are some admitted facts in this case. They are as under, Applicant Zahid Ali and Shrimati Fahmida Begum were married according to Mohammedan Law. Kumari Rizwana is their daughter born out of the wedlock. That on 14th July, 1986, the parties are divorced under the Mohammedan Law. The marriage was solemnised in the year 1973. The wife applied for maintenance under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code for herself and her minor daughter Rizwana. The proceedings were commenced before the Magistrate vide Criminal Case No. 12 of 1978 and by an order dated 3-11-1982, maintenance @ Rs. 75/- per month was granted to daughter Rizwana and the claim of the wife was rejected. The husband filed a revision being Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1983 for setting aside the amount of maintenance granted to daughter Rizwana whereas the wife filed Criminal Revision No. 5 of 1983 against the rejection of her claim for maintenance. Both the Criminal Revisions No. 2/83 and 5/83 were decided by the Sessions Court on 29th December, 1983. The Sessions Court dismissed the revision of the husband and allowed the revision of the wife thereby granting her maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per month. A petition filed by the husband against the grant of maintenance to the wife was rejected by this Court on 27th November, 1983. The husband approached the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court which confirmed he grant of maintenance to the wife. The Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court rejected the husband's petition for special leave to appeal (C. R. I. No. 968/83) and also the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1893/85 by an order dated 18th November, 1983. The order granting maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per month to the wife and Rs. 75/- per month to her daughter Rizwana stand concluded and became final. The wife was divorced on 14th July, 1986.

3. It is important to note that before the date of divorce, the wife had started execution proceedings claiming the arrears of maintenance for her and her daughter in Misc Criminal Case No. 8 of 1984 on 24th February, 1984. It appears that the husband was paying the amount of maintenance, but did not clear the entire arrears. In that execution proceedings on 11th December, 1987, the husband filed an application objecting its validity. He claimed discontinuance or cancellation of the maintenance amount granted to t he wife and the daughter. It has been contended in the said application that since the wife has been divorced on 14th July, 1986, the relationship of husband and wife came to an end therefore, the husband was not legally bound to maintain the wife. It was therefore urged that as a divorced wife. Fahmida was not entitled for maintenance on the ground that the relationship of husband and wife came to an end. There was no objection raised in the application as regards granting maintenance to the daughter Rizwana. However, at the stage of argument, additional contentions were raised by the husband. The first contention raised was that in view of section 5 of the 1986 Act, the option has to be exercised jointly by the parties to opt for the provisions of section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. Having not opted for the provisions of section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, the execution proceedings are not maintainable. The second contention was that under section 7 of the 1986 Act, the recovery proceedings cannot be proceeded further, Section 7 reads as under :---

"Every applicat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document