SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Raj) 565

Supreme Court
Honble A.S. ANAND & K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.
Noor Saba Khatoon - Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Quasim - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1197 of 1995
Decided On : July 29, 1997

Advocates Appeared:
A. Sharan, Advocate for Appellant Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate for Respondent

Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 125 and Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divroce) Act, 1986, Sec. 3 (1) – Maintenance to minor children by father – Held – The children of Muslim parents are entitled to maintenance u/s. 125, Cr.P.C – This is for the period till they attain majority or are able to maintain themselves, which-ever is earlier and in case of femals, till they get married. (Para 11 & 12)

       Thus, both under the personal law and the statutory law (Sec. 125 Cr.P.C.) the obligation of a Muslim father, having sufficient means, to maintain his minor children, unable to maintain themselves, till they attain majority and in case of females till they get married, is absolute, notwithstanding the fact that the minor children are living with the divorced wife. (Para 11)

Honble ANAND, J.–A short but interesting question involved in this appeal, by Special Leave, is whether the children of Muslim parents are entitled to grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for the period till they attain majority or are able to maintain themselves whichever date is earlier or in the case of female children till they get married or is their right restricted to the grant of maintenance only for a period of two years prescribed under Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 notwithstanding Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2). The appellant married the respondent according to Muslim rites on 27.10.1980. During the wedlock, three children were born - two daughters and a son. On certain disputes arising between the parties, the respondent allegedly tur-ned the appellant out of the matrimonial home alongwith the three children then aged 6 years, 3 years and 1-1/2 years and also refused and neglected to maintain her and the children thereafter. After turning the appellant out of the matrimonial home, the respondent took a second wife, Shahnawaz Begum. Claiming that the appellant has no means to maintain herself and the children and that the respon-dent had both agricultural land and was carrying on business in electrical appliances as well and had sufficient income and means to maintain them, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Shri A.K. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gopalganj, on 13.2.1992. She claimed a sum of Rs. 400/- per month for herself and Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance for each of the three children.The application was contested, though it was only the appellant, who adduced evidence at the trial and the respondent/husband did not lead any evidence. The Trial Court found that the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain his wife and children and that they had no source of income or means to maintain themselves and accordingly held that they were entitled to the grant of maintenancefrom the respondent. By its order dated 19.1.1993, the Trial Court directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for herself and at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month for each of the three minor children, till they attain the age of majority. While the matter rested thus, the respondent divorced the appellant and thereafter filed an application in the Trial Court seekingmodification of the order dated 19.1.1993, in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act). By an order dated 27.7.1993, the Trial Court modified the order dated 19.1.1993, insofar as the grant of maintenance to the appellant is concerned while maintaining the order granting maintenance to each of the three minor children. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the Trial Court held that in view of the provi-sions of the 1986 Act the appellant-wife after her divorce was entitled to maintenance only for a period of three months i.e. for the period of Iddat. The Trial Court further found that the right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. insofar as the children are concerned was not affected by the 1986 Act in any manner. The order dated 27.7.1993 was challenged by the respondent through a Revision Petition inthe Court of 2nd Additional Judge, Gopalganj. On 16.7.1994, the revisional court dismissed the revision petition holding that the 1986 Act does not over-ride the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to the minor children and that Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act also entitles a divorced woman to claim reasonable and fair maintenance from her husband for maintaining the childrenborn to her before or after he divorce from her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of the children and that the said provision did not affect the right to maintenance of the minor children granted by Section 125 C
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top