A mere plea of divorce in the written statement is not sufficient to prove divorce under Muslim Law, and the duty of the husband to maintain his wife with dignity.

B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. This Revision Application has been filed by the husband under Section 19(4) of the Family Court's Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 08.03.2004 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur in Criminal Misc Case No. 9 of 2003. By the said order the learned Trial Judge has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) per month to the wife of the present petitioner.

2. I have heard Shri Ng. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None represented the wife/respondent. Hence, Shri L. Sharat Sharma was appointed as Amicus Curiae.

3. An application for maintenance was filed by Ms. Thambalsana Bibi in the year 2000 stating that she was a widow and about eight years ago she was married by Md. Nurali. According to the respondent, after maintaining marital relation she was neglected by her husband. Hence, the respondent prayed for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month, but she was awarded only a sum of Rs. 500/- per month.

4. The maintenance case was contested by the husband by filing his written statement primarily on the ground that he had divorced his wife. It was pleaded by the husband that he had divorced his wife by executing a talaknama on 04.10.2002 and as such, his wife was not entitled to any maintenance allowance. It was also pleaded by the husband that neither had he inflicted any cruelty upon his wife nor she was neglected in maintaining her during the marital life. At the same time it was also contended by the husband that his wife is working as an Anganwadi Worker getting monthly wages of 1200/- per month and as such, she did not deserve any maintenance allowance from the present petitioner.

5. Both the parties adduced three witnesses each to corroborate their pleadings. After hearing both the parties the learned Trial Judge disbelieved the story of divorce and has awarded the maintenance allowance.

6. Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on three grounds. His first contention is that the Talaknama was executed in presence of witnesses and despite corroborative evidence the same has not been accepted by the Court below, which amounts to illegality. The second submission is that the learned Judge ought to have held that the divorce was at least effected from the date of filing of the written statement and thereafter the wife should have been asked to file appropriate application for maintenance under the Provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Apart from this legal submission, the learned Counsel also submitted that even otherwise, the wife was not entitled to any maintenance allowance since she was suitably employed and having sufficient earning.

7. Per contra, Shri L. Sharat Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that even a divorcee is entitled to maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. To buttress his submission, the learned Counsel cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of Rohtash Singh v. Smt Ramendri and Ors. 2000 CriLJ 1498. The ratio of this authority is not applicable in the present case as it relates to Hindu widows, whereas I am dealing with a case of Muslim woman. The learned Counsel also submitted that even a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to get maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and in support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Shaikh Babbu v. Sayeda Masarat Begum and Anr.

8. There is no dispute regarding marriage of both the parties. The only question revolves around the question as to whether the respondent was at all divorced on 04.10.2002 either by way of pronouncement of oral talak or by way of executing a written talaknama. The learned Trial Judge has held that the opposite party/husband has failed to prove that there was divorce by agreement between him and his wife. This finding has been given on the basis of