SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Pat) 45

PATNA HIGH COURT
Vishwanath Mishra, J.
Mohammad Zafaruddin
Versus
Sayeeda Khatoon
Criminal Revision No. 639 of 1978 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 20, 1979

A Muslim wife is not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if she has received the full dower debt before the institution of the case.

Headnote:

MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125, 127 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - MUSLIM WIFE - MAINTENANCE AFTER DIVORCE - DOWER DEBT PAID BEFORE INSTITUTION OF CASE - NO MAINTENANCE ALLOWABLE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Md. Zafaruddin, divorced his wife, Sayeeda Khatoon, on 6th June 1973, and executed a deed of talaquenama. At the time of the divorce, he paid her the complete dower debt. Sayeeda Khatoon filed a case under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. The Magistrate allowed her a sum of Rs.200 per month as maintenance.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that a Muslim wife is not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if she has received the full dower debt before the institution of the case. The court interpreted section 127(3) of the Code as a proviso to section 125, and held that the order of maintenance should be cancelled if the wife has received the dower debt before or after the order is passed.

Issues: Whether a Muslim wife is entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if she has received the full dower debt before the institution of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of sections 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the principles of harmonious construction. It held that the two sections should be read together, and that section 127(3) should be interpreted as a proviso to section 125. The court also referred to the principles of Muslim law, as laid down in Mulla's Principles of Mohamedan Law, 17th edition, which state that a wife is not entitled to maintenance after divorce if she has received the dower debt.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application in part and modified the order of the Magistrate. It held that the petitioner was not liable to pay maintenance to his divorced wife, but he was liable to pay maintenance to his minor daughter.

Judgment

V. Mishra, J.

1. This revision application is directed against an order passed in a case under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the new Code), by Shri S. Upadhay, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate patna City, on 10th of June, 1978. By this order, the learned Magistrate has allowed to opposite-party no.1 a sum of Rs.200 by way of maintenance for herself and her minor daughter, opposite party no.2.

2. The admitted position that emerges out after arguments of both the parties in this case is that Sayeeda Khatoon (opposite patty no.1) was divorced by Md. Zafaruddin (petitioner) on 6th of June, 1973 and a deed of talaquenama was also executed. It is further admitted position that at that very time her complete dower-debt was paid to her. This fact finds mention also in paragraphs 19 and 22 of the judgment of the trial court.

3. I have already said above that the learned Magistrate has allowed a sum of Rs.200/- as maintenance, both for wife and daughter. The fact that the petitioner is liable to maintain the daughter is also admitted (vide paragraph 9 of the revision application ). Therefore, the only question now that remains to be decided is whether the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to his divorced wife, even after paying her the dower debt before the institution of the case itself. For a decision on this point, I may first refer to section 125 of the new Code which says (leaving unnecessary details) that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, a Magistrate of the first class may order payment of monthly allowance for her maintenance. The word "wife" has been defined in the explanation to this section for the purposes of Chapter xix in which this section finds place. The definition runs as follows : " wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried". This section does not say anything about a wife who has received the dower-debt in accordance with her personal law.

4. I may now turn to section 127 (3) of the new Code which runs as follows:

"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 her husband and that she has received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which under any customary or personal law applicable to the parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such order- (i) in the case where such sum was paid before such order, from the date on which such order was made ; (ii) in any other case, from the date of expiry of the period, if any, for which maintenance has been actually paid by the husband to the woman; (c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance after her divorce, cancel the order from the date thereof. "

A reading of this section shows that if any woman has been allowed maintenance under section 125 of the new Code, it may be later cancelled, if she has received before or after the said order, the whole of the sum payable to her under any customary or personal law. The fact that opposite party no.1 has received the entire dower debt before the institution of the case is no where in dispute. Thus she has definitely received under her personal law. As the section reads, there may be an order for cancelling the order of maintenance already granted, but a question arises as to why such a stage should be allowed to come where the necessity of cancelling the order may arise. According to the rule of harmonious construction, there does not appear to be any doubt left, that if a Muslim wife has already received the full dower debt before an order under section 125



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top