Judgment

Rajnesh Oswal, J.—The present petition has been filed under section 561-A Cr.P.C by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Awantipora (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) and also order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama in the revision petition filed by the petitioner by virtue of which the order dated 26.12.2017 (supra) has been upheld.

2. Briefly stated the facts relevant are that the respondent-wife herein had filed an application under section 488 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance on the ground that the marriage between the petitioner-husband and respondent has been solemnized according to Muslim rites and rituals on 12.03.2014 and without any rhyme or reason, the petitioner herein has turned out the respondent-wife of her matrimonial home eight months prior to the filing of the application i.e. 02.07.2016. The respondent-wife further stated that she was without any source of income and because of the neglect by the petitioner she had been residing with her brother.

3. The respondent-wife had also filed an application for interim maintenance before the trial court. The petitioner herein filed the objections in which he has categorically stated that the respondent was a divorcee and was not entitled to any maintenance under Muslim Law. He pleaded that he had sent the divorce deed through registered post at her home address. The divorce has been witnessed by the witnesses and received by the respondent-wife. The petitioner-husband placed on record the copy of the divorce deed and also the postal receipt in support of his assertions. He further pleaded that he was working as a Daily Wager and hardly earned Rs. 5,000/- per month and also he had liability of maintaining the old aged ailing parents.

4. The learned trial court, vide order dated 26.12.2017 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application, to the respondent as interim maintenance. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing the revision petition and the Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama vide order dated 14.06.2018 upheld the order passed by the learned trial court. It is noticed that during the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner-husband placed on record the copy of the document, titled- settled reply under reference No. 190000-04131 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Srinagar dated 16.05.2016. In the said document, it was mentioned that the complaint of Delay in delivery of Articles of Registered Letters addressed to Rukaya (Mehak) Rah D/o. Jalal Din Rah R/o Awantipura near Municipal Committee, District Pulwama is settled on 16.05.2016 with the following information that ‘The Article stand refused by the addressee and returned to you on 11.05.2016”. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pulwama, while upholding the order of the trial court, differed with the observations made by the learned trial court with regard to reconciliation efforts made between the parties. However, on the ground that the divorce deed was not received by the respondent herein, upheld the order passed by the trial court.

5. The petitioner has assailed both the orders passed by the learned trial court as well as by the revisional court primarily on the ground that once the plea of divorce has been taken by the petitioner, the learned trial court ought to have desisted from granting any interim maintenance and also that the court of revision has passed the order without giving finding on the legal question of law and has erroneously upheld the order passed by the trial court.

6. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds taken in the memo of petition and has placed much reliance upon the decision of coordinate bench in case titled Masarat Begum vs Abdul Rashid Khan and another.

7. On the contrary Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the if the