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

1997 Supreme(HP) 328

SURINDER SARUP, KAMLESH SHARMA
MAUJDEEN – Appellant
Versus
GOHRI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R. P. Singh. Advocate. For the Respondent:Mr. Roopesh, Kanwar. Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Surinder Sarup, J. :- The present revision petition has come up before us on a reference order made by a Single Judge ( Bhawani Singh. J.) dated 11.8.1992. This reference was necessitated because of the different interpretations put on the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. 1986 (herein after to be called as the Act) by various High Courts. The said Act was enacted as a result of the decision of the apex Court which is now the celebrated case of Shah Bano Begum, reported as Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Ors. (AIR 1985 Supreme Court, 945). As noticed, in the reference order the High Courts of Patna. Andhra Pradesh. Madras, Bombay, Allahabad, Rajasthan and Kerala have .taken the view that after the commencement of the Act no claim for maintenance is admissible under Section 125. Code of Criminal Procedure except by mutual agreement irrespective of the act whether the order for maintenance has been passed priori to the commencement of the Act or subsequent thereto.

2. On the other hand, the High Courts of Gujarat, Calcutta, Kerala, Guwahati, Punjab & Haryana and Karnataka in another case have taken the view that the Muslim women are entitl





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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top