HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.22 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case against the order in M.C. No.22 of 2005 dated 07-11-2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa assailing the monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- awarded to respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner and respondent No.1 herein, who are respondent and petitioner respectively in the M.C., are husband and wife respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the M.C. before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the M.C. before the trail Court are that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. The respondent received Rs.25,000/-as dowry, 6 tulas of gold, 30 tulas of silver and other household articles at the time of marriage. The petitioner and the respondent led happy marital life up to one year. Thereafter, the respondent started demanding the petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-, and if she failed to do so, he threatened to pronounce Talaq. However, with the intervention of village elders, they lived together for some time. Then the respondent again started harassing the petitioner for additional dowry and she was necked out of the matrimonial home. When the same was questioned by the parents of the petitioner, they were beaten up by the respondent. The petitioner has no source of income as her parents are old aged persons and that she is pregnant. The respondent is having 8 acres of land and deriving an income of Rs.50,000/-per annum and he is also running a cycle taxi and drawing an income of Rs.2,000/- per month and that he is not providing any means to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner sought maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month. 5. The respondent filed his counter in the M.C. before the trial Court denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent has divorced the petitioner by pronouncing Talaq as per Muslim Law on 30-11-2004 and there is no relationship of husband and wife. It is stated that a Talaqnama was executed in the presence of witnesses as per Muslim Law and the same was communicated to the petitioner through registered post on 05.12.2004 along with a demand draft of Rs.1,500/- towards the maintenance of Iddat period. After receiving divorce deed, the petitioner filed a false complaint under Section 498-A of IPC, and the respondent has filed civil suit in O.S.No.93 of 2004 seeking a declaration that the petitioner is not his wife. It is stated that parents of the petitioner never gave any gold or silver items at the time of marriage and he never demanded additional dowry of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent is not having any land and that he has only 4 old cycles and he is deriving an income of Rs.30/- to Rs.40/-per day by hiring them as cycle taxi. 6. To prove her case, the petitioner got herself examined as PW.1, and her father and another were examined as PWs.2 and 3, however, no documents were marked. On behalf of the respondent, he got himself examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R-1 and R.2 7. Considering the material produced by both the parties, the trial Court observing that the marriage between the parties is subsisting and that the respondent being a husband is bound to maintain the petitioner and that the petitioner has no means to maintain herself, held that she is entitled to maintenance and accordingly granted a sum of Rs.500/- per month towards her maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed this revision. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 9. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision? 10. It is the case of the respondent that the trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order in spite of his plea that he had given oral Talaq on 30-11-2004 in the presence of his mother and his two brothers and in the absence of petitioner-wife. The said oral Talaq was reduced into writing and the same was sent to the petitioner under registered post along with Rs.2,551/- towards Maher amount. The respondent had also sent Rs.1,500/-on 23-12-2004 towards maintenance for three months during Iddat period. Since the petitioner was staying separately from the respondent, she filed aforementioned M.C. on 07.05.2005 as a counterblast. It is also stated that in spite of informing about dissolution of the marriage by way of Talaq, the trial Court had passed the impugned order ignoring the same. The fact of enacting the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986 is also brought to the notice of the trial Court, but without considering the same, the trial Court passed the impugned order. The respondent was not having any property and he is eking out his livelihood by hiring four cycles as taxi in the village. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that she is not a divorcee. She was not divorced by the respondent according to the law of the land and/or according to the Personal Law (Shariath) and the same is evident from the fact that he had filed suit O.S.No.93 of 2004 seeking a declaration that the petitioner is not his wife. The respondent has failed to file the alleged oral Talaqnama. It is contended that it cannot be said that the petitioner is a divorced wife of the respondent. The enactment and/or existence of special law cannot be a ground to deny maintenance to the petitioner. In any case, the legal position governing the field at the relevant point of time was not brought to the knowledge of the trial Court. At this stage, the respondent cannot be permitted to raise the ground of special enactment. So far as the quantum of maintenance amount of Rs.500/- per month is concerned, it is contended that it is a meagre amount and the same is not at all sufficient to support the lonely woman to maintain herself. It is an admitted fact that when she was driven out from her matrimonial home, the petitioner was carrying for two months. 12. Though the respondent claimed that he had given oral Talaq on 30.11.2004 and that he had paid Maher amount and maintenance for three months towards Iddat period, he is unable to produce any material before this Court to prove the same except reiterating the pleas and contentions raised before the trial Court. Further, it is seen that the respondent filed suit O.S.No.93 of 2004 seeking a declaration that the petitioner is not his wife. If it is a valid Talaq, the question of filing the suit for declaration does not arise. In the circumstances and since the marriage between the parties is subsisting and they are living separately and the petitioner has no means to maintain herself, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioner. Thus, this Court does not see any ground to allow this revision, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order under revision. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date:______________ STP