JUDGMENT - A.B. PALKAR, J.:---These two Criminal revision applications have been placed before us by the order of The Honourable the Chief Justice as the learned Single Judge (D.D. Sinha, J.) hearing these petitions found that conflicting views were taken by different Single Judges of this Court in respect of requirement of proving divorce as contemplated by the provisions of Mahomedan Law and the matter is required to be decided by larger Bench.

2. Criminal Revision Application No. 164 of 95 arises out of Misc. Criminal Case No. 64 of 1993 decided by the 2nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot who allowed the application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code directing the respondent/husband to pay Rs. 150/- to the applicant/wife and Rs. 75/- each per month to the two children. The order having been challenged before the Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision No. 211 of 1994, was reversed and the maintenance claim of the wife came to be rejected

3. While resisting the claim of wife, respondent/husband made a statement in the witness box that he has divorced his wife and had sent talaqnama to her by registered post. She refused to accept the same. The envelope containing the Talaqnama with the postal remark 'refused' was produced. Learned Magistrate found that the factum of the respondent having given divorce to applicant wife was not proved. It is pertinent to point out that plea of divorce was not taken in the Written Statement by respondent/husband.

4. While reversing the order, the learned Sessions Judge found that although no contention was raised in the written statement regarding divorce, the respondent had led evidence and had produced the Talaqnama as well as envelope containing postal endorsement. In view of this evidence, when the divorce was communicated by registered post with acknowledgment due to the wife and she refused to accept the registered envelope, the wife was entitled to claim maintenance only upto the period of Iddat and she was not beyond that period and this order is impugned in revision before us.

5. Criminal Revision Application No. 27 of 1996 arises out of similar application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha and registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 152 of 1991. When the said proceedings were pending before the Magistrate, Revision Application No. 182 of 1992 was filed before the High Court and the High Court granted stay of further proceedings. While disposing of the case, the High Court directed that both the parties be heard before deciding whether there is divorce between the parties or not.

6. Thereafter two documents were produced before the trial Court in order to substantiate the case that there was divorce between the parties and it was also contended that the husband had paid Rs. 7786/- towards Mahr and Rs. 670/- towards maintenance for Iddat period. Learned Magistrate, however, found that filing of such document was not sufficient to prove that there is divorce and as such, he allowed the application for maintenance granting the same @ Rs. 300/- per month to the wife.

7. This judgment was challenged by filing revision application before the Sessions Judge bearing No. 41 of 1994. The order of learned Sessions Judge granting stay to the execution of maintenance order was challenged before this Court and by order dated 10th Oct. 1995, the learned Single Judge (R.M. Lodha, J.) directed the Sessions Judge to hear revision application on merits and dispose it of as per the directions of this Court and the Additional Sessions Judge held that as oral Talaq is admissible in Mohamedan community, it is sufficient for the husband to pronounce oral Talaq even in the absence of wife and as per section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, it is provided that divorced women are not entitled to claim anything more than maintenance for the period of Iddat and the amount of Mahr, the wife was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document