Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

- 1 -

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2309 OF 2009

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.717 of 2009]

Shabana Bano

....Appellant

Versus

Imran Khan

....Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Verma, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

Appellant Shabana Bano was married to the

respondent Imran Khan according to Muslim rites at

Gwalior on 26.11.2001. According to the appellant, at

the time of marriage, necessary household goods to be

used by the couple were given. However, despite

this, the respondent-husband and his family members

treated the appellant with cruelty and continued to

demand more dowry.

Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

- 2 -

3.

After some time, the appellant became

pregnant and was taken to her parents’ house by the

respondent. The respondent threatened the appellant

that in case his demand of dowry is not met by the

appellant's parents, then she would not be taken back

to her matrimonial home even after delivery.

4.

Appellant delivered a child in her parental

home. Since even after delivery, respondent did not

think it proper to discharge his responsibility by

taking her back, she was constrained to file a

petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') against the

respondent in the Court of Family Judge, Gwalior. It

was averred by the appellant that respondent has been

earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month by doing some

private work and she had no money to maintain herself

and her new-born child. Thus, she claimed a sum of

Rs.3000/- per month from the respondent towards

maintenance.

5.

On notice being issued to the respondent, he

Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

- 3 -

denied all the contents of the petition filed by the

appellant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. except

admitting his marriage with the appellant.

6.

Preliminary objections were raised by the

respondent that appellant has already been divorced

on 20.8.2004 in accordance with Muslim Law. Thus,

under the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of

Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘Muslim Act’), appellant is not entitled to any

maintenance after the divorce and after the expiry of

the iddat period. It was also contended by him that

appellant herself is earning Rs.6,000/- per month by

giving private tuitions and is not dependent on the

income of the respondent, thus, she is not entitled

to any maintenance. It was also contended by

respondent that appellant had gone to her parental

home on her own free-will and accord, after taking

all the jewellery and a sum of Rs.1000/- and despite

notice being sent, she has not returned to her

matrimonial home. Thus, for all these reasons, she is

Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

- 4 -

not entitled to receive any amount of maintenance.

7.

The Family Court was pleased to frame issues

and parties went to trial. After considering the

matter from all angles, the learned Judge of the

Family Court partly allowed the appellant's

application as under:

“(1) respondent shall pay Rs.2000/- per

month as maintenance allowance to the

petitioner

from 26.4.2004, date of

institution of

petition to the date of

divorce, i.e. 20.8.2004 and thereafter

from 20.8.2004 to the period of iddat.

(2) respondent will bear cost of the suit

of himself as well as of petitioner.”

8.

Thus, the claim of the appellant was allowed

to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards

maintenance from the date of institution of the

petition till the date of divorce, i.e., 20.8.2004

and further from the said date till the expiry of

iddat period but amount of maintenance thereafter was

denied.

9.

The appellant was, therefore, constrained to

carry the matter further by filing Criminal Revision

Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)NO.717/09

- 5 -

No. 285 of 2008 before the Gwalio