IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1798 of 2009 Abdul Gafur, son of Abdul Sattar, resident of village- Maheshua, P.S.-Madhepura, District- Madhepura. ….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ruksana Khatoon, daughter of Ful Mohammad. 3. Mazda Khatoon, daughter of Abdul Sattar. 4. Nazda Khatoon, daughter of Abdul Sattar. (All residents of village-Maheshua, P.S.-Madhepura, District- Madhepura) ……..Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 3. 13.12.2011 This revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhepura in Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.36/2003 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-per month to his wife, opposite party no.2 and a sum of Rs.1000/-each per month to his daughters, opposite party nos. 3 and 4 for their maintenance. The case of opposite party no.2 is that she was married to the petitioner according to the Muslim rites. After marriage, she went to her Sasural and led conjugal life. The demand of dowry was made and for the fulfillment of the demand of dowry, she was assaulted and ousted, for which, a complaint case was filed, which was compromised. Out of that wedlock, she delivered two 2 daughters Mazda Khatoon and Nazda Khatoon, opposite party nos. 3 & 4. Later on, again she was tortured for the demand of dowry of Rs.40,000/- and she was ousted from her Sasural. She arrived to her father’s house and residing there with her two daughters. She is working like a maidservant to maintain her. The petitioner has four bighas of land and a hotel in Delhi and his monthly income is Rs.18-20,000/-per month, but he does not maintain her and her two daughters, whereas they have no means to support themselves. The petitioner has filed his show-cause denying the allegation made by his wife. The case of the petitioner is that he has no land and he is poor and illiterate person. The marriage and the birth children out of wedlock of the petitioner and his wife is admitted. Both the parties have led their evidence and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not in a position to give the amount of maintenance to his wife and daughters as directed by the impugned order. The petitioner’s monthly income is Rs.3000/-per month, whereas, the amount of 3 maintenance has been fixed at Rs.4000/-per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has divorced his wife, opposite party no.2. As such, she is only entitled to get maintenance till the Iddat period, therefore, her petition is also not maintainable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and after the divorce the opposite party no.2 can get only the maintenance from the petitioner under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rites on Divorce) Act, 1986. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Abdul Mannan Versus Saira Khatoon & ors. Reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 320. The learned counsel for the State submits that both the parties have led their evidence and the quantum of maintenance has been fixed by the learned Principal Judge according to the income of the petitioner. He has also submitted that the divorce has not been admitted by the wife of the petitioner. He has stated that her husband has re-married and he has also children from the second wife. He has also submitted that the Muslim woman is also entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4 After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in support of the case, both the parties have led their evidence documentary as well as oral. After considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Principal Judge has come to the finding that there is no proper evidence of divorce, but even the divorced wife is also entitled to get the maintenance until she is remarried. It is not case of either of the parties that the wife of the petitioner has remarried. It is the petitioner, who has remarried and has also children from his second wife. The learned Principal Judge has come to the finding that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor daughters (opposite party nos. 2 to 4). Even a divorced Muslim wife can file a petition against her ex-husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court and can get relief for maintenance as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabana Bano Vs. Imran Khan reported in 2010 (1) Supreme Court Cases 666. In this view of the matter, the decision reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 321 (Abdul Mannan Vs. Saira Khatoon & Ors.) does not help the petitioner. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)