1. Petitioner seeks quashment of Revisional Court order dated 15.10.2009 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 7/2009 titled Bilquees Naseem v. Naseem Ahmad Bhat whereby the Revisional Court has reversed the finding recorded by the Trial Court that Bilquees Naseem was divorced by her husband Mohammad Naseem Bhat disentitling her from claiming maintenance under Section 488 Cr. P. C. The admitted and undisputed facts are as under:-

2. Mohammad Naseem Bhat and Bilquees Akhter alias Bilquees Naseem — petitioner and respondent No. 1 in the present petition, contracted marriage on 24.08.2002 and out of wedlock Baby Kareena Naseem- respondent No. 2 in the petition, was born on 06.06.2003. They however, some time after respondent No. 2 was born, fell apart. The parties have their own versions as regards reasons for their separation.

3. Be that as it may, respondent No. 1 on her behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter-respondent No. 2 on 30.01.2006 filed an application under Section 488 Cr. P. C. in the Court of JMIC/3rd Additional Munsiff Srinagar. The respondent's case before the Trial Magistrate was that the present petitioner not happy that respon#31;dent No. 1 had begotten a female child, subjected her to inhuman treatment and threw her out along-with Baby Kareena Naseem from her marital home, leaving her without any source to fall back upon. It was insisted that the petitioner was a man of substance, had an income of Rs. 30,000/- per month and had sufficient resources to maintain the respondents. The respondents asked for Rs. 30,00/- per month to each of them, as maintenance allowance. The petitioner resisted the application on the grounds that he had divorced respondent No. 1 on 22.12.2005 and he was not under any obligation to pay maintenance allowance to respondent No. 1. The petitioner denied that the respondents were thrown out and insisted that the respondent No. 1 left his house on her own, taking with her all her belongings including ornaments and apparel and even got false and frivolous case registered against him at Women's Police Station, Rambagh, Srinagar.

4. Learned Trial Magistrate on perusal of pleadings and appreciation of evi#31;dence brought on the file, held respondent No. 1 to have been divorced by petitioner before respondent No. 1 approached the Trial Magistrate with her application under Section 488 Cr. P. C. and thus not entitled to receive any maintenance from the petitioner. However, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1800/-per month to respondent No. 2 from the date of filing of the application.

5. The respondent aggrieved with the order of the Trial Magistrate dated 30.06.2009, whereby her claim for maintenance was rejected, questioned it through medium of a revision petition before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. Learned Revisional Court on perusal of the record and after making a survey of law on the subject, set aside the Trial Magistrate order dated 30.06.2009 holding it to be perverse, illegal and passed in a mechanical manner. The Revisional Court asked the Trial Magistrate to determine the quantum of maintenance allowance to which respondent was entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The order of Revisional Court is questioned in the petition on hand on the grounds set out in the petition. It is insisted that the Trial Court order is well reasoned, in conformity with law and does not suffer from any error, illegality or impropriety so as to warrant interference under Section 435 Cr.P.C. The Revisional Court order, according to petitioner, amounts to abuse of process of Court and deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers vested in the Court under Section 151-A Cr.PC.

7. I have gone through the petition as also Trial Court and Revisional Court record. I have heard Counsel for the parties.

8. Whether a Muslim husband has an absolute and unqualified power to pronounce divorce on his wife and wriggle out of his obligations under the marriage contract? Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document