IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1369 of 2008 Md.Irfan, son of Md. Qamrul Hoda, resident of village & P.O.- Nari, P.S.-Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga. ………….Petitioner Versus 1. Nazrana Khatoon, daughter of Md. Farukh. 2. Raiesa Khatoon. 3. Anisa Khatoon 4. Marisa Khatoon. (2 to 4 all daughters of Md. Irfan and all residents of village- Nari, P.S.-Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga) ………Opposite Parties With CR. REV. No.1411 of 2008 Nazarana Khatoon, wife of Md. Irfan, resident of village-Nari, P.S.-Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Irfan, son of Md. Kamrul Hoda, resident of village- Nari, P.S.-Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga. ………Opposite Parties. ----------- 6. 14.11.2011 Cr. Rev. No.1369/2008 has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in Maintenance Case No.5/2005 (B) by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month to opposite party no.1 for the maintenance of her three minor daughters, opposite party nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that the petitioner has no means to pay the amount of maintenance and secondly, he is ready to maintain his 2 minor daughters, opposite party nos. 2 to 4. Cr. Rev. No.1411/2008 has been filed by the wife against the part of the said order by which the learned Principal Judge has wrongly accepted the divorce claimed by the opposite party and meagre amount has been fixed for maintenance of three minor children. As such, both these applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party. It is admitted fact that Md. Irfan was married to Nazarana Khatoon and out of their wedlock, Raiesa Khatoon, Anisa Khatoon and Marisa Khatoon were born. Due to some reasons, they developed some dispute between the couple and ultimately, the husband deserted his wife and children, who are living with his wife, which led to filing the maintenance case no.5/2000(B) by Nazarana Khatoon against her husband Md. Irfan under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the maintenance of herself and her three minor daughters. During the trial, the husband has raised his plea that her wife has been divorced by him, which has been accepted by the court and has held that 3 since she has been divorced, she is not entitled to get maintenance from her former husband. This finding is perverse, as it is not a case of either of the party that after the divorce Nazarana Khatoon has remarried. It is settled principle of law that even a divorced wife is entitled to get maintenance from her ex- husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. In this context, reference may be made to a decision in the case of Shabana Bano Vs. Imran Khan reported in (2010) 1 SCC 666. In this view of the matter, the finding of the learned Principal Judge that a divorced woman is not entitled to get the maintenance from her former husband is erroneous in law, as such, this finding is set aside. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the wife Nazarana Khatoon that Md. Irfan has examined as O.P.W.4 and he has stated in the cross- examination that he has filed a case against his brother-in- law, the brother of Nazarana Khatoon, who looted Rs.1200/- from his pocket, which was the sale proceed of one day of his Kirana shop. The learned counsel for the Nazarana Khatoon 4 has further submitted that the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge is too meagre for the maintenance of three persons. He has further submitted that in pursuant to the order dated 8.05.2009 passed in Cr. Rev. No.1369/2008, Md. Irfan is not paying a sum of Rs.1000/-per month to Nazarana Khatoon and only Rs.400/- is being given against the arrears of the maintenance allowance. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to reduce the amount of maintenance granted by the impugned order to opposite party nos. 2 to 4, minor daughters of the petitioner Md. Irfan. Accordingly, Cr. Rev. No.1369/2008 is dismissed. Cr. Rev. No.1411/2008 is allowed to the extent that Nazarana Khatoon has been denied the payment of maintenance allowance and also to the effect that the amount of maintenance is too meagre for the maintenance of three minor daughters of Md. Irfan. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the question as to whether the divorce, if any, 5 made by Md. Irfan to his wife is valid or not. The matter is remanded to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga for consideration of maintenance to Nazarana Khatoon and for also the enhancement of the amount of maintenance to his three minor daughters. To this extent, the Cr. Rev. No.1411/2008 is allowed. So far the amount of maintenance granted by the learned Principal Judge to his minor daughters will continue till the final decision in Maintenance Case No.5/2005(B). In the result, both these revision applications stand disposed of in the manner stated above. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)