HtGH COUWV OF Crf‘tHATTESGARH AT BtLASPUR uu: m3 unwm u'nJiH saw; a; n APPUCANT NON-APPLECANT$ ‘ “n JUE'fiCE T.P. EHARmA Abciu! Subur‘ Slo Abdm Mahk aaend about 44 years‘ residence 9f Q. N5. {-25, Street No. 14'. zone-:3. Khursipar. Bhliai. Tahsi! and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Versus Ku. Nasira Anjum, daughter of Abdu} Subur. aged about 21 yeara KurKaushar Anjum aiias Sakira Anjum, aged about 20 years. Both resident of Q. Nos 82, MLG. I Hudko Secior, Bhiiai, Tahsii and Dism t C/oEbdul Ka‘rim, QN‘Q s2, we , Hudko Sector, B’m'lai‘ Tahsii and District Durg Chhattisgarh EB Khatija,, wife of Abdul Suburt aged about 4‘0 years reeidence of QINO 82 M‘LQ, Hudko Sec‘gor. Bhilai, Tahsi‘; am Districi Durg‘ Chhamsgarh. Clo Abdu! Karim, QNo, 82, MLG. , Hudkc Sector, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg. Chhattisgam. )l\ Durq Chha’rtisgarh. ((1. ohm ,. NK. C resoortdemb APPLICANT RESPONDENT$ u And 8.8. Khatiia WJ’O Abdu! Subur; aged about 1g years. R/o C/o Abdut Aéeem Quarter n0 82. MtG‘ Huduco Sector Bhiieif Disttt Durg (C.G.)V Versus Abdui Subur, S/o Abdui Maiik; aged about 25 yeare lo Qt. No. L D‘ Road . "id. Jone—3‘ Khurshipar‘ Bhiiai, District Durg(C.G.). Ku. Nasira Anjum, D/o Abdui Subur, aged about 2 years. L. \1 l Crimimt Revision No. 28812006 Present : Shr Nq “h rename: ejvocate forthe appttcant. h n ee and $hri Jitendra Gupta. Advocate for the . a ! Rev§sion No. 348/2006 Kumari Koushar Anjum “ Sakira Anjumz aged abeut 3 years. Resoondem No 2 and 3 are mmor ‘hrouch applicant B u Knmua, Rio C/o Abd w Neem Qr No 82 M l G Huduco Sectar Bullag Dist. Durg (CG). i?) Pmwr“ QM“ ‘~< “‘M' r1 Nb” “andaGupta,Advocatefmthe appiicant . Qhr N S Dhur‘ M a L dvocate ‘or the respondents Q{ gun u *3 ORDER ‘ - (Pawwm . 7 Marchaooa) The a criminai‘ :‘evi-e‘me No. 288/2006 and 348/2006 preferred againe: the order daisd 2234K2008 passed bye?“ Additmnai Principe! Judge; Famiiy Cow“: Cmrg in miscellaneous criminal case No. 195-2005 are being disposed of by common order Crln'wlal remsrm kn 288/2006 has been filed by the annlrcar‘tfhusband manner Wife and daughters for quashment or order impugned C i revisien Nor 348/2006; has been fiied by? the wife/mn—apglicen‘l ageidst husband/applicant for quashment of w order impugned and lo, award or” maintenance against the order ~y 2r C Addltlora‘ Pr”. pal Judge . Fam:‘y 7:} , ’3': 'iminai Case No. 195/2005. BB Khatiia, Is wife or" Abdul Subur. Kur Nasira Anjum and Ku. Kaushar Anium ae the daiighiiers of applicant and non-applicant. Application for mainienanoe under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure " “> r’oereinafier referred to as the code“) was and daughters against husband/father oerore the dud hia‘ ‘/l«(ristrate ?irst Class, Durg, After establishment of Camily Court e “in lose \nmich was pending before tne Jodrcral Maoistrate F’rs‘ l“ a was transferred to the Family Court Durg‘ p) tited on behalf h‘ t r ' e ” e Afte’r "giving appoaun’iw of hearing, the 2’.‘d_ Additional Principat JudgefFahwiiy Gourt has awarded Rs. v1,000/- per month maintenah'ce to the each daughter from the date of appHcation i‘e. 29i7f87 til! their marriage and rejected the claim of maintenance of wife on the ground 3m? she is divorced Muslim wife and is not entitled for maintenance in accordance with the Provision of Section 4 of Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘as the act‘). Her claim of maintenance was *«f also previously denied by the trial Court vide order dated 9/1 1/2004‘ The applicantinusband has preferred the revision petition No.- s 288/2006 on the, ground that award of maintenance from the date of application ie not just and proper. The amount of maintenance is excessive Applicant No. 2 born on 21/9/87 therefore, awarding of mamtenancefromthe date of application i.e. 23/7/87 prior to her birth is illegai; Before amendment in Section 125 of the Code. The maximum amount of maintenance awardable in accordance with the provisions of Section 1'25 cf the (Jade was Rs. 500/—.‘ The provision is amended vide MPV Act Not 10 of 1998 w.e.f. 29/5/98, therefore, Court wasrnot iusrified to award maintenance of more than Rs. 5001-. in Revision No. 348/2006 the order impugned is challenged on the ground that wtfe/applicant BB. Khatija, has right to claim her maintenance She is not divorcee Muslim lady and is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. Counsel for'the parties heard. The ‘order impugned and record of trial Court perused. Parties are Muslim'end vide order dated 9/11/2004: trial Court has arrived at a finding that applicantNo 1 BB. Khatija is a divorcee Muslim iadir hence she is not entitled for maintenance under the ;w .proVisions of Muwm Women (Protection of Rightsvon Divorce) Act; 21986; The order {dated 9f11/2004) wasrrznotwchailenged by 7 ‘ wife/applicant. .9; flt isns‘ubmitted on behalf of the appiicant/w‘ife that divorce has not 4 efie‘cted’»beween hu$band and Wife‘ The Muslim lady is entitled for -‘.,:umaf;:+tenance even af‘tef the period of iddét‘undek;.Section 4 of the Act againstiher relatives/Wakf Boardl Reliance on Dania! Latifi V. vivUh-ion of mafia NR 2001 $0, 3958 has been placed in which was ,held that Muelém huobana' is iiabie to make reasonabie and fair provision for future of ciE‘V/orced Wife which inciudes maintenance for v the‘ oeriod of iddet ‘10.’ it is ral$o submitted on behalf of the daughters that Court is comoetent‘ to award maintenance from theedate of application by ‘reasoned ordet Reliance has been placed on Dharmendra Kumar «Gupta Vs. Mrs‘ Chandra Prabha Devi 1990. (3) Crimes; 2&6, Allahabad H‘C, in which it has held that Court is competent to award maintenance from the date of applicationoby reasoned order. ’11. ;w maww 1 ho :Inoother hand, lit is aubmitted on behalf of applicant/husband thaixr” u, ' order impugned suffers for illegality on the ground of quantum of ‘ c W maintenance of more than Rs, 500/-, the order of maintenance is ‘1 ' " fromnthe date of application, and same is excessive. ‘ : 124:4 ‘On‘lperusal of order dared 11/9/2004 (in order sheet) it is avident that w ' I} wwafte'ratakino into oonsideration the factum of divorce between Muslim :,,_Spouse the claim of maintenance of wifewas denied in accordance with the orovision of Section 4 of the Act. The order of denial of maintenance was not challenged by the applicant/wife. The order dated 9/1 1/2004 also reflects in para No. 22 of the order impugned. é“ w a ‘ i3 w 1:) c: i?m from the date of appHca‘kmrx after recuvding the reason for the same, In this case after taking in to considemtion the expenses for their education and daHy heeds khe trial Court has awarded maintenance from the date of the appHcation which is neither unjust nor imporoper. The warfare of the chiid is paramount consideration Non applicant Nor 3 Kumari Koushar Anjum is not entiried for maintenance from the date of application Le 29/7l87 but from her birth ire 21/9/87. 80th the daughters are entitied for maintenance “ of Rs. ROOI— per month rill 29/5/98 (date of coming in to force of the 1. amended provision) ‘ §., .i As regard the quantum of maintenance non-applicanfs No. 2 & 3 are daughters of appiicent who is under obligation to maintain them for their daiiy needs. Coneidering the present cost of living amount of maintenance Re iOOOi— monthly each is neither excessive nor unjust. Consequentiy, the petition filed on behalf of applicants Nosr 2 & 3 (Cr. Revision Nor 288/06) is partially allowed and the order impugned is partialiy modified. Applicant Nor 2 is entitled for maintenance Rs‘ 500l- per month from the date of application i.e. 29/7/87 tili 29/5/98 and after 29/5/9E till her marriage at the rate of Rsl 1,000/— per month, Applioant No. 2 Kumari Ko’ushar Anjum‘is entitled for maintenance Rs. 500/- per month from 21/9/87 till 29/5/98 and from M 29/5/98 til! her marriage at the rate of ‘Rs‘ 1,000l- per month; if any amount of maintenance has been paid in excess same shall be adjusted in future with this modification criminal revision No. 288/06 is disposed of and criminal revision Nor 348/2006 is dismissed Sdl— T3. Sharma Judge R“