By this petition under section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner assailed the impugned order dated 31.1.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Revision No. 28 (4) 1996 filed by the respondent herein against the order dated 7.8.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonamura, West Tripura, in Misc Case No. 30 of 1995.

2. The petitioner being the married wife of the respondent filed a maintenance petition under section 125 Cr PC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonamura, West Tripura in Misc Case No. 30 of 1995. The husband respondent contested the maintenance petition contending, inter alia, that during the pendency of the case the husband-respondent divorced the wife-petitioner and, as such, in view of the related provision of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the maintenance petition under section 125 Cr PC is not maintainable. The learned Magistrate held that the petitioner being a divorced wife of the respondent was entitled a maintenance of Rs 3,000 only for the Iddat period and also Rs 7,500 as Moharana (Dower). Aggrieved the husband preferred criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 31.1.1998 dismissed the revision. During the revision the present a petitioner (wife) laid her claim to be paid reasonable and fair 'provision' and 'maintenance' to be paid by her husband for her whole life but not for within Iddat period. But the learned Sessions Judge, rejected the claim as she did not prefer revision against the order of the learned trial Court. Hence, this present revision.

3. Though the petition is drafted and styled to be criminal revision under section 397/401 Cr PC before the commencement of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner humbly approached the Court to treat the petition to be one under section 482 Cr PC in order to secure ends of justice on the ground that this petition involves substantial question of law relating to the interpretation of section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, (herein after called the Act of 1986).

4. I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the petition filed by the divorced wife-petitioner and on perusal of the petition and the related provisions of the Act, 1986, I am convinced to exercise inherent power under section 482 coupled with the provision of section 483 of the Cr PC to resolve the question of law posed before me in this petition.

5. By this petition, the petitioner claims that she being the divorced Muslim woman has the right to be allowed the reasonable provision and maintenance from her former husband, the respondent, for her whole life or till her remarriage but that must be paid within Iddat period. But the learned Courts below allowed her the maintenance for Iddat period.

6. The main question posed to be resolved is whether in view of section 3 of the Act, 1986 the former husband in under statutory obligation to make reasonable and fair 'provision' and 'maintenance' to his divorced wife for the Iddat period or for the whole life and to be paid within Iddat period? For convenience sake, the related provision of section 3 (1) of the Act is extracted below :

“3. Mahr or other properties of Muslim woman to be given to her at the time of divorce : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a divorced woman shall he-entitled to-

(a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the Iddat period by her former husband;

(b) where she herself maintain the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children;

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause (a) of sub-section (1) of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document