The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantiating claims, the objective of Section 125 Cr. P.C to prevent vagrancy, and the court's authority to award maintenance based on the totality of circumstances.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. This application by the petitioner husband under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in CR Case No. 19(3) of 2004 dismissing the revision petition filed by the husband revision petitioner challenging the order dated 30.7.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhubri in Misc. Case No. 148 of 2002 awarding maintenance of Rs. 700 per month for the wife (present opposite party) and Rs. 450 per month for the minor son with effect from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C, i.e. 2.5.2002.

3. An application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the present opposite party Musstt. Hasina Bibi against the present the petitioner claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month for herself and at the rate of Rs. 400 per month for first son, Rs. 300 per month for the daughter and Rs. 200 per month for the second son. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Dhubri on the basis of the evidence on record came to the finding that the petitioner-husband having sufficient means neglected to maintain his wife (present opposite party) and his minor son who are unable to maintain themselves. The learned Magistrate also came to the finding that the husband drove the wife out from his house and has contacted a second marriage. It was further found by the learned Magistrate that out the wedlock between the present petitioner and present opposite party 3 children were born, one of the son is with the present opposite party/wife, other children, namely one daughter and one son are with the present petitioner/husband. Having recorded the said finding an amount of Rs. 700 and Rs. 450 per month were awarded as maintenance by the learned Magistrate for the wife and the minor son living with her with effect from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 2.5.2002. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner-husband moved the learned Sessions Judge in revision which was dismissed vide order dated 11.2.2005 by upholding the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate.

4. Since the second revision by the same party is barred under Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the present application has been filed by the husband, who was the revision petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for invoking inherent power of this Court.

5. It appears from the judgment passed by the learned courts below that the petitioner has taken the stand that the present Opposite Party is not entitled to any maintenance as the marriage between them was dissolved by divorce as talaknama was executed on 7.3.2002 divorcing the Opposite Party and as an amount of Rs. 5,000 being the mohorana and a further amount of Rs. 3000 as maintenance for the iddat period totaling Rs. 8,000 was paid to the opposite party. Both the courts below has disbelieved the story of the husband, present petitioner as the said talaknama could not be produced before the court and the petitioner also could not prove by adducing reliable evidences about execution of such talaknama.

6. Mr. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the judgment of the learned courts below on two counts:

(i) As the petitioner has divorced the Opposite Party by executing a talaknama, she is not entitled to any maintenance except the maintenance for the iddat period, which has already been paid, in view of the provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986.

(ii) No orders awarding any amount as maintenance can be passed which is more than the amount claimed by the applicant.

7. Mr. Sheikh, the learned Counsel in support of his contention in Point No. (i) has submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party was dissolved by executing a