JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this criminal misc. writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Smt. Zahida Anjum has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 06.05.2005 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.173/2004 (connected with criminal revision no.212 of 2004) and also seeking issuance of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to pay maintenance amount of Rs.5000/-per month to the petitioner from the date of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. Relevant facts giving rise to this petition are as below:-

The petitioner moved an application seeking maintenance from her husband-respondent no.2, Atiqur Rahman before the Magistrate concerned in 2001. The trial court passed an order on 30.06.2004 and awarded Rs.1500/-per month in her favour as maintenance, payable from the date of the order. Challenging above order the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 preferred separate criminal revisions, Criminal Revision no.212 of 2004 seeking enhancement of maintenance amount by the petitioner and Criminal Revision No.173 of 2004 filed by her husband seeking to set aside the maintenance order. The learned revisional court dismissed revision filed by the petitioner and allowed the revision of respondent no.2 quashing the maintenance order by passing a common order dated 06.05.2005.

4. Following contentions are raised by the petitioner:-

Petitioner was never divorced and false plea of divorce was taken by her husband in written statement for the purpose of stalling the grant of maintenance. Respondent no.2, to stress his plea of divorce could only file photocopy of talaqnama that too at a very late stage of the trial, hence the plea of divorce was quite doubtful; learned trial court took correct view that the petitioner was entitled for maintenance; the petitioner was never paid any amount of dower nor any other amount to maintain her during “iddat” period; learned revisional court wrongly set-aside the order of Magistrate on the basis of assumptions and conjunctures; the view taken by revisional court was not supported by the evidence on record.

5. On the other hand, respondent no.2 has averred that he divorced his wife by pronouncing talaq three times (triple talaq) in a Panchayat held on 20.04.2004; the Panchayat was attended by father and relatives of his wife; the plea of triple talaq was categorically mentioned in his written statement filed before the trial court; no replication/additional reply to counter the above averment was ever given by his wife; he paid amount of dower and maintenance for “iddat” period; that because she is a divorcee, therefore, she is not entitled for any relief under the provisions of section-125 Cr.P.C.; section-3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 shall apply in such circumstances.

6. The petitioner has filed “written arguments” before this Court. In addition to the contentions mentioned in para-4, it is argued that:-

(i) The plea of divorce is not acceptable and further such plea cannot impinge upon her right to obtain maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the light of pronouncement of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamim Ara vs. State of U.P., 2002 Crl.L.J. 4726.

(ii) It was mandatory to attempt for reconciliation between the parties, hence, any divorce without such attempt is illegal.

(iii) The revisional court gave the findings ignoring both the points of law just mentioned above.

(iv) If for argument sake, the petitioner is considered as divorcee, she has not re-married till yet. And therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan, 2009 AIR SCW 7490, she is entitled for maintenance so long she did not re-marry.

(v) Grant of divorce by pronou