A divorced Muslim woman's right to maintenance extends beyond the iddat period, and applications for enhancement may invoke multiple legal provisions, including the Muslim Women Act and CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

The present common judgment arises out of two revision petitions i.e., RPFAM No.260 of 2017 preferred by the divorced Muslim woman (hereinafter referred as the Petitioner), and RPFAM No.293 of 2017 preferred by the ex- husband (hereinafter referred as the Opposite-Party), both challenging the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, in Criminal Proceeding No.121 of 2016.

2. Vide the said order dated 07.10.2017, the amount of maintenance was enhanced by the learned Court below from Rs.3000/- to Rs. 8,100/- in an application filed by the Petitioner U/s 127 of CrPC. While the Petitioner seeks enhancement of the maintenance awarded to her as being inadequate and disproportionate to the Opposite Party’s income, the Opposite Party assails the said order as excessive, unsustainable and without jurisdiction.

3. The undisputed facts, as borne out of the records, are that the marriage between the Opposite Party, who is the Petitioner in RPFAM No.293 of 2017, and the Petitioner, who is the Opposite Party in RPFAM No.293 of 2017, was solemnized on 11.04.1993 according to Muslim rites and customs. After about six months of the marriage, the Petitioner joined the Opposite Party at his place of posting at Jajpur Road, where they resided together as husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, a son namely, Asad Khan was born on 29.09.1995. In the year 1999, the Opposite Party was transferred to Bhubaneswar, where the couple continued to live together with their son.

3.1. However, marital discord arose between them. On 27.10.2003 serious matrimonial disputes led to the Petitioner leaving the matrimonial home. Subsequently, on 03.11.2003, the Opposite Party pronounced talaq upon the Petitioner, thereby dissolving the marriage. Shortly thereafter, i.e., on 12.11.2003, the Opposite Party alleged that Petitioner and her son forcibly entered his house at Bhubaneswar and began residing there, thereby dispossessing him from the said house. On the same day he lodged an FIR alleging offences of criminal trespass and intimidation. G.R. Case No. 3953 of 2003, on which the Police submitted a charge-sheet, remains pending before the competent Court. Whereas the Petitioner lodged FIR No.90 of 2004 against the Opp. Party for the alleged offences U/s 498(A), 506, 34 of I.P.C. so also C.S No.115/2008 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar to restrain the Opposite Party by injunction not to evict her from the house At-Patia, P.S- Infocity, Bhubaneswar, with a Counter Claim by the Opposite Party to evict her from the said house.

3.2. Following the dissolution of marriage, the Petitioner filed C.M.C. No.61 of 2004 before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, shortly, “the Act, 1986”, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- for herself and Rs.2,000/- for her son. By order dated 29.07.2006, the learned Magistrate directed payment of maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to each of them. Being aggrieved thereby, the Opposite Party preferred Criminal Revision No.751 of 2006 before this Court. In the said Criminal Revision, the issue was scope of a Muslim husband’s liability post-divorce under the Act, 1986, so also maintainability of such application under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1986, vide which a prayer for maintenance of the minor child was also entertained by the learned Court below. But, in absence of reasonable and fair provisions of maintenance in favour of Muslim minor