1980 Supreme(MP) 322

B D. Bhatt, J.
Rayajunnisa v. Sultan Mohammad.
Cr. R. No. 124 of 1980 (J); Decided on 1-10-1980.

Headnote:Criminal P. C. 1973- S. 125-Maintenance under-divorcee emit led to claim-divorce by mutual agreement-whether makes any difference.

       The applicant-wifes claim in the trial Court for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was based on the premises that" since the time she had gone to her parents place for medical treatment in 1961, the non-applicant-husband completely neglected to maintain her and did not provide for her maintenance at all. It was alleged by her that she had not means of Li"Velihood and that the non-applicant-husband despite having substantial means, had been neglicting and refusing to maintain her for no justifiable reason. According to her, the monthly income of the non applicant husband, as a teacher in the Government School, was Rs.400- per month and as such she claimed a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.50/- Besides, she also claimed the mehar amount of Rs.1001/- and Rs.7500/-, which she claimed to have incurred to pay the debt for maintaining herself so long,

       The non-applicant-husband refuted the claim of the applicant-wife in toto. The Claim was simply denied on the ground that there had been a divorce by mutual consent and that the wife had freed him from all liability so much so that she had relinquished her mehar amount as also the iddat amount; and it was in consequence of this that he remarried, and he had four children from the second wife and since she had not claimed anything for all these 18 years, she was not entitled to any maintenance. It was equally contended that the applicant had been earning Rs.1500/- per year by making bidis.

       The trial Court, relying on a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in Sk. Hamid Khan v. Mst. Jummi Bi (1978 MPU 38). held that the applicant-wife having consented by mutual agreement dated 23-12-1962 for divorce and having relinquished her claim for mehar amount and iddat, and having permitted the husband to re-marry, was no longer entitled to any maintenance amount. Accordingly her claim for maintenance was dismissed and hence now the wifes present revision.

       Held: The learned counsel for the applicant-wife has urged before me the solitary point that the ruling relied on by the trial Court is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussein, AIR 1979 SC 362= 1979 MPU 132. The learned counsel for the non-applicant-husband persists on his reliance on this Courts earlier decision reported in Sk Hamid Khan v. Mst. Jummi Bi (supra). Although he is unable to distinguish the said case from the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain (supra)

       I have gone through both the decisions referred to above and it is at once clear that the Supreme Court decision applies on all force to the present case. 1978 MPU 538 held no more good law in view of AIR 1979 SC 362= 1979 M PU 132. Revision allowed.