Divorced Muslim wives are entitled to maintenance under S.125 of CrPC until obligations under specific statutory provisions are fulfilled.

1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Chavara under S.125 of CrPC in M.C.No.110/2020.

2. The parties are Muslims governed by Muslim Personal Law of India. The petitioner and the respondent were husband and wife. Admittedly they are separated. The petitioner is the husband and respondent is the wife. The petitioner has taken up a contention that he divorced the respondent by pronouncing 'Talaq' and hence the respondent cannot invoke the provision under S.125 of CrPC. However, the Family Court allowed the maintenance case and directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the respondent.

3. I have heard Sri. C.S. Manilal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ajaya Kumar G., the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition under S.125 of CrPC is not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent is a divorced wife. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner has given his retirement benefits to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent by way of fixed deposit and he has already filed O.P.No.405/2023 to declare that the said amount has to be treated as discharge of his liability under S.3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short the Act).

5. It is no more res Integra that a divorced Muslim wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband until the husband discharge his obligation under S.3 of the Act. (See Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740 ).

6. Here is a case where the petitioner contends that he has discharged his liability under S.3 of the Act by depositing Rs.7,00,000/- in a fixed deposit in the name of the respondent. However, the respondent does not admit the same. Unless and until the petitioner gets a favourable decree in O.P.No.405/23, he cannot contend that he has discharged his obligation under S.3 of the Act. That apart, the contention taken by the petitioner that he has divorced the respondent by pronouncing 'Talaq' is disputed by the respondent. Thus, I am of the view that the petition under S.125 of CrPC is perfectly maintainable.
The petitioner does not have a case that the respondent is employed and has any income. The petitioner is a retired police officer. Admittedly, he is getting pension. Considering the requirement of the respondent and means of the petitioner, I am of the view that the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.7,000/- by the Family Court is absolutely reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.