Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Md. Shariful Islam Malita @ Shariful Islam Malita @ Shariful Islam – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Opp. Parties
CRR 868 of 2020 with CRR 3014 of 2019
Decided On : 01-05-2024
Maintenance - Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 125 Cr.P.C. - The court affirmed the dual relief provisions under the MWPRD Act and Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for fair maintenance and the return of stridhan to divorced women.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and opposite party were married under Islamic rites. Following allegations of dowry demands and cruelty, the opposite party filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and subsequently under Section 3 of the MWPRD Act after their divorce.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide maintenance and return stridhan, thus upholding the orders for maintenance and the return of gifts as fair and reasonable.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance under both the MWPRD Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. and whether the orders for maintenance and return of stridhan were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that overlapping claims for maintenance under different statutes can coexist, and the relief granted in one can be considered in the other, ensuring fair treatment of divorced women.
Result: The court affirmed the lower court's orders and dismissed the revisions filed by both parties.
JUDGMENT :
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) :
1. The present revision has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge, 1st Court, Murshidabad at Berhampore, in Criminal Revision No. 175 of 2018 arising out of order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad at Berhampore in M.R. Case No. 51(4) of 2015 under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986.
2. The petitioner states that it was alleged by the opposite party No. 2 that:-
3. It is further stated the opposite party no.2 filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and her minor child which was registered as MR No.1252/15 being filed on 25.06.2015. After filing of the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no. 2 took option to also proceed as Divorced Wife under the provision of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986. The case under Section 3 of the said Act was filed just after one month of the filing of the maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
4. The case under Section 3 of the MWPRD Act was filed on 14.07.2015 and registered as MR No. 51(4)/15.
5. The opposite party no.2 adduced evidence in the said case no. MR-51(4)/15 stating that the marriage with petitioner was resolved by divorce but the petitioner did not return the stridhan articles and also did not pay the maintenance during the period of Iddat as well as Denmahar amount. The opposite party also adduced evidence in maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance.
6. The petitioner filed an application under Section 401 & 482 of Cr.P.C. before Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta seeking quashing of the proceeding which is numbered as CRR No. 3636 of 2015 and the Hon’ble High Court, vide Order dated 01.04.2016 has been pleased to pass an order that the relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 3 of the MWPRD Act overlap and it is open to a party to proceed with the matter and the relief if any granted in one proceeding may be taken into account in the other proceeding.
7. The case under Section 3 of the MWPRD Act was finally disposed of on merit directing the present petitioner to pay ‘Den Mahar’ and maintenance and at the same time the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was finally disposed of on merit directing the petitioner to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. double relief in two different proceedings was granted to opposite party simultaneously.
8. The petitioner has preferred a revision vide Cr. Rev. 120/18 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed in MR Case No. 1252/15 which is pend
The judgment clarifies that divorced women are entitled to maintenance under both the MWPRD Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., ensuring their financial security post-divorce.
Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is available to revisionist once she had taken resort to proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Divorced Muslim women's entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC is upheld, emphasizing legal requirements for talaq involving mediation.
Court reaffirmed the rights of a divorced Muslim woman under relevant statutory provisions, emphasizing financial assessment based on several factors.
The court emphasized the necessity for financial disclosure in domestic violence cases to ensure fair maintenance assessments, mandating adherence to established principles from prior apex court ruli....
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable maintenance under the Muslim Women Act, and cannot claim double benefit from both the Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure despite existing maintenance from another proceeding.
Talaq pronounced without reconciliation is invalid; divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, affirming Family Court's jurisdiction to hear such claims.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
