A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after the Iddat period if she cannot maintain herself.

ORDER

1. The matter comes on an application (Inward No. 01/2021) filed by the petitioner seeking early hearing of the revision petition.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today itself.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the main revision petition and perused the order impugned.

5. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the Order dated 11.06.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 431/2004 whereby while allowing the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent-husband, the Order dated 06.08.1999 awarding monthly allowance of maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was modified holding that she would not be entitled for any maintenance from the respondent-husband from the date of passing of the Order dated 11.06.2008, whereas, the application seeking enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-wife was dismissed.

6. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-wife moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly allowance of maintenance from the respondent-husband, which was allowed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur vide Order dated 06.08.1999 awarding a sum of Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife from the respondent-husband. Thereafter, the respondent-husband moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court on 30.04.2004 stating that he had given divorce to the petitioner-wife on 11.01.2000 by a written document in the presence of two witnesses. It was averred in the application that in view of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (afterwards referred to as "the Act of 1986"), after divorce, the petitioner-wife was not entitled for any maintenance and prayed that the Order dated 06.08.1999 awarding maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife may be set aside while allowing the application filed by him.

7. The petitioner-wife filed reply to the above application. She also moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. inter alia stating that the respondent-husband was not paying regular maintenance awarded in her favour by the learned Family Court and during these years, the income of the respondent-husband had also increased to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- per month and therefore, she prayed for enhancement of monthly allowance of maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month.

8. Reply to the said application was filed by the respondent-husband.

9. After recording the evidence of both the parties, learned Family Court vide Order dated 11.06.2008 while allowing the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent-husband, modified the Order dated 06.08.1999 awarding monthly allowance of maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered that since the petitioner-wife was divorced by the respondent-husband, therefore, she would not be entitled for any maintenance from the date of passing the Order dated 11.06.2008. Consequently, the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-wife seeking enhacement of monthly allowance of maintenance was dismissed.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705 contended that it is now a well established legal proposition that even a divorced Muslim wife is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after the period of Iddat if she is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is against the settled legal proposition and therefore, liabl