IMPORTANT POINT
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, and the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain such claims, irrespective of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

ORDER

1.1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sonepur in Cr.P. No.7 of 2023 under Annexure-1.

3. The background facts of the case are that the Opposite Party filed a Petition for maintenance U/s.125 of CrPC before the learned Judge, Family Court, Sonepur registered as Cr.P. No.7 of 2023. In the said petition, she stated, inter alia, that the present Petitioner is the husband and the Opposite Party is the wife. The parties are Muslim and they are guided by the Muslim Personal Law. The marriage between the parties was performed on 02.01.2021 in accordance with ceremonies as laid down in their personal law and it was consummated. The relationship between the parties continued only for a period of nine months and ten days. It is further contended that after the marriage, the Petitioner and his family members subjected her to ill-treatment and torture demanding more dowry for which the Opposite Party instituted a criminal case against the Petitioner and his relatives registered vide Tarbha P.S. Case No.270 of 2022 under Section 498-A/506/34 of IPC. She alleged to have no source of livelihood and is completely dependent on her relation for her survival and as such she is leading a miserable life. The Opposite Party further stated that her husband is having a wholesale shop dealing with bangles and his monthly income is more than four lakhs. On this background the Opposite Party prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month in her application before the learned Judge, Family Court.

4. The Petitioner having caused his appearance filed his show-cause before the learned court of Judge, Family Court traversing the averments made by the Opposite Party in her petition under Section 125 of CrPC.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Nanda appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner categorically stated in his show cause that he married the Opposite Party on 02.01.2021 and after marriage, there was no demand of dowry as alleged by the Opposite Party. On the contrary, the Opposite party, after marriage, started misbehaving the parents and sister of the Petitioner. Thereafter, on enquiry from her father, the Petitioner came to know that she had mental disorder and was under treatment. The Petitioner also got her treated for the same. The Petitioner made several attempt requesting the Opposite Party and her father to extend co-operation in her treatment but they refused to accede to the request of the Petitioner and the Opposite Party willfully deserted the Petitioner. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner as per the Muslim personal law applicable to the parties gave Talaq to the Petitioner in the month of June, 2022, July 2022 and August, 2022 completing the three Talaqs over a period of three months. Accordingly, the Opposite Party has been legally and validly divorced by the Petitioner since 22.08.2022.

6. It is also contended by Mr. Nanda that after the Talaq, a reasonable and fair provision of maintenance was given by the Petitioner within the 'Iddat' period to the Opposite Party. He also gave an amount larger than the amount which was fixed as 'Mahr' or 'Dower'. According to the Mohammedan Law, all the marriage presentations brought by the Opposite Party were duly returned to her at the time of the third Talaq. After the Talaq, the Opposite Party was residing separately in her parental home. After the Opposite Party got divorced, she remarried in accordance with the personal law of the Muslim. As such, the Opposite Party has no claim over the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner he is working in a shop and is receiving a paltry remuneration of Rs.1500/- per month and it is difficult for him to make both ends meet. According to the Petitioner, it is preposterous to say that he would pay maintenance to the Opposite Party.

7. Raising a contentious point, it is contended by the lear