( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 20. 9. 03 passed by learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Nadia in Misc. Case No. 277 (iv) of 2002 under Section 125, cr. P. C.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a divorced wife of the O. P. No. 1. She filed an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on divorce) Act, 1986 and on 30. 9. 99 the same was disposed of by the Judicial magistrate, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar granting Rs. 101/- as dower, Rs. 500/-per month for maintenance for iddat period. Then the petitioner filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the O. P. No. 1 from the date of application. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 20. 9. 03 holding that the petitioner has reaped benefit under Section 3 of the Muslim women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act and law does not permit her to maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. and she can avail of Section 4 of the said Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate the wife-petitioner has filed the instant petition for setting aside the impugned order and for hearing the Misc. Case on merit.

( 4 ) IT has been contended by the learned Lawyer for the petitioner that the divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. and the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 are made available to the divorce Muslim Woman really in addition to the claim available to them under Section 125 of the cr. P. C. The said Act of 1986 does not indicate that the divorced woman cannot file any application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. independently of said Act of 1986 and it has been laid down in the ruling reported in 2002 Cr lj at page 2282 that the provisions of maintenance under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act made available to the divorce Muslim women are in addition to the claims available to them under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) LEARNED Lawyer has further contended that under Section 3 (a)of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 divorced woman shall be entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the period of iddat by her former husband. In the case of Danial Latifi v. Union of India reported in 2002 Calcutta Criminal law Reported (Supreme) Court at page 1 it has been held that the wordings of the Section 3 of the Act appear to indicate that the husband has two separate and distinct obligations i) to make a reasonable and fair provisions for his divorced wife ; ii) to provide maintenance for her. The emphasis of this section is not on the nature or duration of any such provision or maintenance, but on the time by which an arrangement for payment of provision and maintenance should be concluded namely within the iddat period.

( 6 ) LEARNED Lawyer for the petitioner further contends that in that decision it was further observed that a careful reading of the provisions of the Act would indicate that a divorced woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision for maintenance and at the time of divorce the Muslim husband is required to contemplate the future needs and make preparatory arrangement in advance for meeting those needs. The expression 'within' should be read as 'during' or 'for' and this cannot be done because words cannot be construed contrary to the meaning as the word 'within' would mean on or before, 'not beyond' and therefore it was held that the Act would mean that on or before the expiration of the iddat period the husband is bound to make and pay maintenance to the wife and if he fails to do so the wife is entitled to recover it by filing an application before the Magistrate as provided in Section 3 (3) but nowhere has Parliament provided that reasonable and fair pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document