JUDGMENT

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.—By this revision the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the DV-C/No.11DV of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Tinsukia U/S 12 of the Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including the order dated 18.11.2014 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife (respondent no.1) by the aforesaid ex-parte order.

2. The petitioner/respondent got married on 28.10.1996 as per Moslem Sorihat and out of the wedlock two daughters were born to them but eventually the relation terminated into a formal divorce on 4.9.2013 as per Sorihat Law. The parties to the marriage as a matter of fact got separated far back on 23.3.2013 and formal divorce certificate was awarded on 4.9.2013. On approach by the respondent for getting maintenance for herself and her two minor daughters, the Air Force Authority directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance of Rs.22,800/- per months to the two daughters of the parties with effect from the month of February, 2014 and the said amount was directed to be deducted from the petitioner’s salary. It may be mentioned that the petitioner was working as the Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force and the aforesaid order was made in accordance with Section 91 (1) of the Airforce Act and the amount is so deducted, is being credited to the bank account of the respondent.

3. The respondent no.1 thereafter filed a petition for maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup vide F.C. (Criminal) No. 653/2013 praying for maintenance for herself and two daughters and on objection filed by the present petitioner that the respondent is not entitled to get maintenance in view of the divorce between the parties, the respondent withdrawn the said petition with a submission that proper petition will be filed as per provision of Muslem (Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986) for the relief of the divorce but the respondent subsequently filed the aforesaid DV-C/No.11DV of 2014 regarding Domestic Violence with various allegations pertaining to the period 2007 and 2011 which is far remote affairs and thereafter the courts by the impugned ex-parte order has directed the present petitioner to make a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent. The aforesaid order as well as the DV proceeding is stated to be bad in law inasmuch as the petitioner has already divorced the respondent and also offered the Meher amount to which she did not accept and has filed the case with false allegation after more than one year of divorce.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly on the ground that as there was divorce between the parties in the year 2013 and as such filing of petition under Domestic Violence Act after the divorce is not maintainable. In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner also referred the decision reported in (2011)12 SCC 588 Indrajit Singh Grewal –vs- State of Punjab; 2013 (3) GLT 344 {Meraj Alom (Alhaz Dr. Md.)-vs- State of Assam & another}; (2014) 10 SCC 736 (Juveria Abdul Mozid Patni –vs- Atif Iqbal Mansoori and anr).

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently objected against the above contention that has been raised by the petitioner and placing reliance to the decision of Juveria Abdul Mozid Patni –vs- Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another (supra), it has been submitted that as per the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, a petition filed by the divorce wife under the aforesaid Act is maintainable.

6. Due consideration is given to the aforesaid submission and also gone through the citations referred above. Needless to say, the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court will prevail on the subject in hand. For better appreciation let us reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment in Juveria Abdul Mozid Patni –vs- Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another (supra):

“7. Befor