1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.993/2009. Shaikh Ahmed s/o Shaikh Ismail - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Shahinbee d/o Gulamgaus Patwe and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Hemant Surve, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 8TH October,2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2) The petitioner, by the present Criminal Application, invokes inherent and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, seeking judicial scrutiny of the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chopada in terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 2 1986. 3) The petitioner- Shaikh Ahmed s/o Shaikh Ismail married Shahinbee and by customary divorce (Talaq), they have severed their relations. An amount of Rs.786/- was fixed as Meher. Out of the wedlock, three issues were begotten. The matrimonial life had its wrinkles for several other shades, resultantly followed in the divorce as stated above dated 21.2.2003. 4) Criminal Application for maintenance was moved. The wife also moved an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, seeking reasonable and fair provision for Iddat period amount and return of Meher amount, as also gift articles. 5) On examining the respective evidence, the learned Judge directed the husband to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the reasonable and fair provision for maintenance and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of property of the wife by order dated 3rd February, 2005. 6) The learned Judge also directed maintenance allowance in Application No.218/2002 @ Rs.218/- per month and Rs.300/- to the children, totaling Rs.1400/- by the order dated 3 29.1.2005. However, the said order was subjected to challenge before the learned District Judge and it was quashed and set aside. 7) The verdict passed by the learned JMFC in Criminal Application No.78 of 2003 in terms of Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was subject of criticism before the Sessions Judge at Amalner and the learned revisional Court at Amalner did not agree to the contention of the husband and consequently, Section 482 Cr.P.C. is sought to be accelerated. 8) The fact, stated herein above about the interse relations, is not in controversy. The evidence about the gift items and the Meher amount though was tried to be controverted, I do not find any substance in it. 9) The award of Rs.1,50,000/- was more subject of criticism as according to the learned Counsel, there is no evidence from the wife that the husband was carrying business of TV repairing shop or engaged in milk business or that he had monthly earning of Rs.10,000/- per month. Though the learned Judge recorded that there was no documentary evidence in respect of her contention about the husband carrying on business and 4 earning Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the learned Judge considered the long span of life to be undertaken and to be enjoyed by the wife. The husband since contended that he was a labour and drawing Rs.25/- per day as a milk vendor was also considered. 10) The learned Sessions Judge considered the different shades and angularities between interse relations and the precarious condition of the wife and the dependency of three children on her. The learned Sessions Judge found that the wife is unable to maintain herself and children. It is so disclosed by her in her evidence and accepted by him. 11) If the longevity of the life of the husband and the wife is considered, the award of Rs.1,50,000/- towards her maintenance and Iddat period by way of reasonable and fair provision in terms of Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, could not have been questioned. The earning capacity of the husband, ages of the parties and they having not remarried, need consideration. The order under challenge, directing the husband to pay the amount, is perfectly in tune with the record and in the present scenario of the living standard. No interference warranted. However, the amount 5 to be paid over within a period of four years by equal installments. Hence, order. 1. Criminal Application is partly allowed. 2. Husband - Shaikh Ahmed s/o Shaikh Ismail shall pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) as directed by the learned JMFC, Chopada by order dated 29.1.2005 within a period of four years in equal installments. Each of such installment to be paid in January of every year, commencing from January-2010. 3. Rest of the reliefs as granted by both the Courts to continue. 4. Criminal Application disposed of in above terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran993-09