HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5242 OF 2008 DATE: 10-11-2011 BETWEEN: Shaik Rahamatullah. - - - Petitioner/ Revision Petitioner/ Respondent. AND Shaik Zameeloon and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Respondents/ Petitioner. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5242 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 17-06-2008 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Criminal Revision Petition No.29 of 2007, confirming by and large order dated 05-02-2007 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, in Maintenance Case No.15 of 2005 awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the first Respondent herein but reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,000/- p.m. from the date of the Petition. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the Respondent, the Respondent No.1 is the Petitioner in M.C. No.15 of 2005. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Maintenance Case. 3. The brief facts of the case areas follows : The Petitioner filed M.C. No.15 of 2005 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. praying to award maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to her against the Respondent claiming that the respondent legally married her but without lawful reasons he neglected and deserted her having means, whereas she got no means to maintain herself. The II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala basing upon necessary evidence adduced therein awarded the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the Petitioner against the Respondent with effect from the date of petition, whereas aggrieved by that, the Respondent preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.29 of 2007 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in which the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the findings of the enquiry Court but reduced the maintenance amount to Rs.2,000/- from Rs.3,000/- following which, the Present Criminal Petition is filed by the Respondent. 4. It is mainly contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the Respondent/Husband that the Respondent pronounced talaaq against the Petitioner/wife which was proved by adducing necessary evidence including the evidence of RWs.2 and 3 who particularly spoke in that context and therefore by virtue of Section 3 (1) (a) of Muslim Women (Protection of rights on divorce) Act, 1986 (For short, ‘The Act’) the Petitioner got right to claim maintenance only up to the iddat period and she got no right to proceed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and further the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- awarded ultimately and the corresponding proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for Petitioner/wife that there is no evidence of pronouncing the talaaq as per law and even supposing that there was pronouncement of talaaq as per law by virtue of section 3 (1) (a) of the Act, she got every right to proceed against the Respondent for payment of necessary maintenance amount for her entire life and further she also got every right to take alternative recourse under Section 125 Cr.P.C. approaching the concerned Magistrate and further the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence adduced and there is no error apparent on the face of the record in order to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts in the matter. 6. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the following decisions : 1) Daniel Latifi and another V. Union of India[1]. 2) Iqbal Bano Vs. State of U.P. and another[2]. 7. In the decision cited first supra, it is held by the Supreme Court with reference to relevant circumstances that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act is not limited only up to the iddat period and it extends for the entire life of a divorced wife unless she involves in remarriage and the emphasis in that section is not on the nature or duration of such provision or maintenance but rather on the time within which the arrangement for their payment should be finalized and executed and to construe the provisions of that Act as less beneficial than the provisions of Chapter IX Cr.P.C. and hold that the husband is liable to pay maintenance only for the iddat period would result in unreasonable discrimination against the divorced Muslim women and render the Act violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. 8. Further, in the decision cited second supra, it is observed by the Apex Court with reference to relevant circumstances that the view expressed by the First Revisional Court that no Muslim woman can maintain a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is clearly unsustainable and the Act only applies to divorced women and not to a woman who is not divorced and furthermore the proceedings covered under Section 125 Cr.P.C are civil in nature and even if the Court noticed that there was a divorced Muslim woman who had made an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. it was open to the Court to treat the same as a petition under the Act of 1986 considering the beneficial nature of the legislation especially since the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and claims made under the Act of 1986 are tried by the same Court. 9. The same principles hold good here. Consequently the wife got right to approach under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance unless it is proved that there was divorce between them, however even supposing that there was divorce between them still she got right to approach the Court under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act of 1986 which imposes condition with regards to the time of payment of the maintenance and the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are to be treated as the proceedings under the Act of 1986 for the purpose of paying necessary maintenance to her, as both the matters are to be enquired by the same Court. 10. Further, the Petition can be entertained only if there is any grave irregularity in the findings of the Courts below, which is not permissible under law. In fact, the Courts below properly examined the matter with regards to the negligence and desertion of the wife by the husband. 11. Further, the Respondent as RW.1 admitted that he worked as Computer Operator through APTECH Agency from February, 2004 to June, 2005 in the Mandal Primary Health Centre, Nakerakallu and he was paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- p.m. But he did not produce any record in that context. He also deposed that his father was having four- portioned house and he constructed another portion about six months prior to his examination before the Court but he denied that the said portion was constructed with the dowry amount given by the Petitioner. When he admitted the same he should have placed necessary evidence to the effect that he got no rights therein and for not doing so an adverse inference is to be drawn. 12. As there is no infirmity in the findings of the Courts below which can be taken cognizance of at this stage, coupled with the decisions cited supra, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the final order of maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded in favour of the Petitioner/Wife. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 10-11-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 287 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5242 OF 2008 November, 10, 2011 DSH [1] (2001) & SCC 740. [2] (2007) 6 SCC 785.