IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Even if a Muslim women has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband, as long as she does not re-marry.
(2) Quantum of maintenance – Wife is entitled to lead life and maintain lifestyle and standard which she has was accustomed to while staying with husband.

JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Advocates for the parties at the stage of admission.

2. In this criminal revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the non-applicant and enhanced the amount of maintenance quantified by the Magistrate and awarded the same at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife and Rs.2,500/- to the minor son from the date of the application i.e. 01.03.2014.

3. The facts are as follows:—

In this judgment, the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in Miscellaneous Criminal Application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the D.V.Act”). The non-applicant is the original applicant. The applicant is the original non-applicant No.1. He would be referred to as a non-applicant.

It is the case of the applicant that she got married with the non-applicant on 07.01.2001. She begotten three children in the wedlock. In the main application there were 13 non-applicants. The rest of the non-applicants are relatives of the non-applicant-husband. The applicant and non-applicant are from Akola. After marriage, the applicant cohabited with the non- applicant at Akola. After sometime the non-applicant got a job in J.G.C. Gulf International Company at Alkhubar City of Saudi Arabia. The applicant went to Saudi Arabia in 2006 and cohabited with the non-applicant.

According to the applicant, during initial period there was no problem. It is stated that there was dispute between relatives of the non-applicant and the relatives of the applicant. They were residing in the same building at Akola.

On the report of the relatives of the applicant, the relatives of the non-applicant were prosecuted in the Court of law. The cause of the dispute and the sour relations between the applicant and non-applicant is the dispute between them. It is stated that the relatives of the non-applicant, namely non-applicant Nos.2 to 13 in the main application, were the real cause of turbulence in their marital relations. They insisted the non-applicant to pursue the relatives through applicant to compromise the criminal case. The non-applicant insisted the applicant to play the role of mediator and convince her relatives to compromise the matter. It was of no use. It is stated that therefore, the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 3 instigated the non-applicant to ill treat and torture the applicant so that the relatives of the applicant and the applicant is forced to compromise the criminal case. The non-applicant at the instigation of his relatives’ insisted the applicant to lodge a report against her relatives. The applicant refused to do so and therefore, she was ill treated and tortured. She narrated the same to her parents. Cousin brother of the applicant, made a complaint to Maulavi in Saudi Arabia and sought his intervention in the matter of cruelty meted out to the applicant. The matter was settled. The applicant joined the non-applicant in the year 2006 again. It is stated that there was no improvement in the behaviour and conduct of the non-applicant. The applicant was mentally and physically tortured and ill treated. In the meeting for settlement the non-applicant gave an undertaking of good behaviour with the applicant. Since the ill treatment and torture continued, in the year 2010 the applicant came back to India with the non-applicant. Again her cousin made complaint to the religious Maulavi in Saudi Arabia against cruelty to the applicant at the hands of the non-applicant. The non-applicant, due to intervention by religious Maulavi in Saudi Arabia, again gave an assurance to treat the applicant properly.

It is stated that there was no improvement in the conduct of the non-applicant. Ultimately in the year 2012, the app