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

2001 Supreme(Cal) 739

High Court Of Calcutta
Narayan Chandra Sil
MAKIUR RAHAMAN KHA - Appellant
Versus
MAHILA BIBI - Respondent
C. R. R.  516  Of  2001
Decided On : 12/10/2001

Advocates Appeared:
H.DEY, I.HUSSAIN, R.PAL, S.CHATTERJEE

A divorced Muslim woman can proceed under section 125 of Cr. P C against her children despite the pendency of the proceeding under sections 3, 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Divorced Muslim Woman - Section 125 of Cr. P C - Section 3, 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 - Section 125 of Cr. P C, Section 3 (3) of the Act, Section 4 sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act - The court discussed the entitlement of a divorced Muslim woman to invoke the provisions of section 125 of Cr. P C against her sons and the maintainability of such a proceeding when a proceeding under sections 3, 4 of the Act is pending. The court interpreted the word 'within' in section 3 (3) of the Act and referred to the case of Danial Latifi and Anr. v. Union of India to support its view. The Constitutional validity of the Act was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Danial Latifi, and it was held that a divorced Muslim woman can proceed under section 125 of Cr. P C against her children despite the pendency of the proceeding under sections 3, 4 of the Act against her husband.

Fact of the Case:

The revisional application was filed against the order allowing maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a divorced Muslim woman from her sons. The husband had taken the plea that he had divorced his wife, and the sons argued that the maintenance case under section 125 of Cr. P C was not maintainable due to a pending proceeding under sections 3, 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Finding of the Court:

The court affirmed the maintenance order, holding that a divorced Muslim woman can proceed under section 125 of Cr. P C against her children despite the pendency of the proceeding under sections 3, 4 of the Act against her husband.

Issues: Entitlement of a divorced Muslim woman to invoke the provisions of section 125 of Cr. P C against her sons and the maintainability of such a proceeding when a proceeding under sections 3, 4 of the Act is pending.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the word 'within' in section 3 (3) of the Act and referred to the case of Danial Latifi and Anr. v. Union of India to support its view. The Constitutional validity of the Act was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Danial Latifi, and it was held that a divorced Muslim woman can proceed under section 125 of Cr. P C against her children despite the pendency of the proceeding under sections 3, 4 of the Act against her husband.

Final Decision: The present revisional application was dismissed, and the impugned order dated 24. 1. 2001 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia was affirmed. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

N. C. SIL, J.

( 1 ) THE present revisional application was directed against the order dated 24. 01. 2001 passed by Sri M. S. Dwivedy, learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah in connection with Misc. Case No. 85 of 1998 under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) IN the said application the maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was claimed by the mother, who was divorced by her husband, from her two sons. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate after having considered the materials placed before him was pleased to allow the application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the O. P. sons to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- each per month from the date of filing of the petition.

( 3 ) IT is stated in the revisional application that the respondent mother had filed application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Misc. Case No. 155 of 1986 claiming maintenance from her husband and her husband took the plea in that case that he had since divorced his wife and she was thus determined to be a divorced Muslim woman. It is also stated in the revisional application as to how the petitioner No. 2 was neglected by his mother who had left the house of her husband at the time when the petitioner No. 2 was a mere child of 3/4 years. It is also stated that the petitioner No. 2 is an assistant of his brother, the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1 earns only Rs. 100/- per month while the earning of petitioner No. 2 is only R. 50/- per month. It is also stated that the respondent-mother failed to discharge her duties by showing love and affection to the revisionists and she had left the house of her husband of her own without any reason. It is again stated in the revisional application that a divorced Muslim wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from her sons as there is no provision under the Muslim law. It is also mentioned that the respondent mother has filed a Misc. Case No. 15 of 1997 under sections 3, 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 against her husband which is still pending.

( 4 ) IT is argued by the learned Advocate for the revisionists before me that since a maintenance case filed by the respondent mother against her husband under sections 3, 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' for brevity), the parallel proceeding under section 125 of Cr. P C against her sons is not maintainable. The learned Advocate for the respondents has drawn my attention to the provisions of the section 3 (3) of the Act and tries to impress upon me that the husband of a divorced Muslim woman is obliged to pay maintenance to his divorced wife during her life time till her re-marriage. The learned Advocate for the respondent has, on the other hand, drawn my attention to the provisions of section 125 (1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and tries, to impress upon me that the divorced woman is also entitled to get maintenance from her sons and the proceeding under section 3 of the Act is only against the husband of the divorced Muslim woman.

( 5 ) IT appears from the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate that a similar point was raised before him but the learned Magistrate just relying on the submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner before him came to the conclusion that the sons of the petitioner are liable to pay maintenance to their mother under section 125 Cr. P C.

( 6 ) THUS, the point for consideration before us is whether a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to invoke the provisions of section 125 of Cr. PC for her maintenance against her sons and whether such a proceeding under section 125 of Cr. P C against the sons of the divorced Muslim woman is maintainable when a proceeding under sections 3, 4 of the Act is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

( 7 ) SECTION 3 sub-section (3) clause (a) of the




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top