This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.11.2008, rendered by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No. 200/2005, titled as Smt. Praveen Rao v. Javed. The said case was initiated by Smt. Praveen Rao (wife) against Javed (husband/respondent no. 2) seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Vide the impugned judgment and order, her claim of maintenance has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the revisionist Smt. Praveen Rao was wedded with the respondent no. 2 Javed as per Muslim rituals and ceremonies, though the revisionist claims that the wedding took place on 28.11.2008, whereas Javed claims that the same was solemnized on 4.1.1996. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the parties are married to each other. There is no issue from this wedlock. Having passed a couple of years amicably with all matrimonial bliss, the differences cropped up between the couple. The allegations were made by wife/revisionist against atrocious behaviour of her husband/respondent no. 2 for demand of dowry. This bitter relation aggravated further and, in the intervening night of 19/20.11.2004, a quarrel took place between the couple. As per the version of the wife, she was beaten by her husband on the said intervening night, while as per the counter-version of Javed, an attempt was made by his wife Smt. Praveen Rao to assault him with a knife, and Mr. Javed having felt the limit of tyrannical attitude at the hands of his wife Smt. Praveen Rao, divorced her in accordance with the provisions of the Shariat Law. Per contra, Smt. Praveen Rao claimed that she left her husband on the next day on 20.11.2004 because of his ignominious treatment of her, and went to her parent’s house, which was not situated very far from her in-laws’ house, and few months thereafter she moved an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance from her husband.

3. In response to the maintenance petition, Mr. Javed took the plea before the court below that he had already pronounced “Talaq” as per the Shariat Law and, therefore, Smt. Praveen Rao no more remained his wife and, as such, she is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court below accepted the contention of the husband-respondent and decided the matter in his favour and against Smt. Praveen Rao, observing that she may claim maintenance under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce), 1986 (for short, the Act). Feeling aggrieved, Smt. Praveen Rao (wife) has filed this revision.

4. It can significantly be noted here that she was awarded rupees two thousand per month as an interim measure by the Family court, which was challenged by the husband before this Court in Writ Petition No. 617/2005, and this Court modified the order of interim maintenance from ` 2000/- to ` 1500/- vide order dated 12.10.2007. She was getting the same from her husband, but ultimately the Judge, Family Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 5.11.2008, finally adjudicated the matter holding that Mr. Javed pronounced “talaq” three times and the parties being strictly “Sunni” Muslims, the divorce was effected then and there in the intervening night of 19/20.11.2004, the moment it was uttered by Mr. Javed.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have re-appreciated the evidence available on the crucial point whether the divorce between the parties was effected, as claimed by Mr. Javed. Before the lower court, Mr. Javed examined himself as DW1 and reiterated his averments as have been made by him in the written statement filed against the application of maintenance. He has also examined Sharafat Ali, Advocate, as DW2, who has only proved the issuing of a notice on behalf of his client Mr. Javed. This notice was given by Sharafat Ali on 20.11.2004 i.e. just on subsequent day of the intervening night of 19/20.11.2004. In the said notice, the same assertion regarding the utteran