-^'^"'^^. '• 3TI^T,5RT f<TlJcb 'cW 3TR?T '5F 3'wT ^t^l^, ^Tn^^KS, fc)<?'>l^^< 6<-^ . \^3Ats. Z56/-Zt309- Nl^ldl cb^lcb"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""^ 200 3{T^?T inra? ( <ic<^<<CT ) ® ^TTW^f?^ ^TT^T SB: HON'BLE SHRI DI^IEIwi PETITIOjNER VsJ RESPOW-DENT 22-8-2QQ7 Smt. Hameeda Siddiqu^ Hearct. 2. The petitioner husbaal: 482 ofCr.P.C. agaiast fhe im|p Criinuial Revision No, Koriya has coiifirmed tlie Crmimal Case No. 100/200^ the Chief Jiidicial Magistratel applicmit/wtfe under Sectioi^ Rights on Divorce) Act, 198^ 1986) has directed tlie the time ofmarriage Rs. 100( articles obtaiiied bv the omainents obtamed bv, ,tN applic|aiit <=hi^f<n4tTi ^i*i<nT ^f f^^ <M^I< ^atRpT^q^r <A MISHRA. J. Sayeed Khaa, S/o Iqbal Khaii, aged about 50 years, Occupatioii Sen/ice (Constable) Pouce Depaitment, R/o Grajii PajiTadsjid (Mominpura.) Police Station aad Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CQ) Smt, Khairumiisha, D/o Barkat Ali, aged about 46 year, Occupation Laboui-hig aad Housevvrife, R/o village Narkeli, Police Station and TehsH Baikunuipur, District Koriya (CG) Advocate for the petitioner, iiulpugned 66/^006 :^ |1 has filed fliis petition mider Section order dated 2-4--2007 passed iii whereby leanied Sessions Jiiclge, ^rder^aated 2-3-2006 passed ui Misc, by tlie (S^def Judicial Magistrate whereby while allowtiig fhe petition of me non- 3 oftlie MusMni Wonien (Protectioii of (hereuiafter refeiTed to as fhe Act of .\ to pay the amourit of Meher fixed at t/'- aiid two Dinar, to retur^tiie value of as dowiy Ks. 10,000^-, value of appUcaat at fhe time of^^iiarriage wlife GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50,000. ^TI^T^T ^Jch WT 37T^[ '^^icb v <S) '3:c^ ^iWW^, Q-^\w\<o, ^<^W^( ^. ^^.hJlo. ^O/^o-^ ^Wvi[ <b*<l<sb ••—•——••••••••"•—•—"•••• ^ 200 3n^?r ^[^R (4C<^<^) ^wi^R ^f^a 3TT^T periofi Rs. 5000/-, value ofthe pres maiatenaace for Iddat applicaiit has also been du'e< non-appUcaQ.t is reniarded, 3. Leamed counsel for the proceedings are govenied the Act of 1986 restricts divorced wtfe only to the ext order iiiipugned is bad as f 3(l)(a) ofthe Act of 1986. 4. From perusal of the ii sam.e has been passed as pei] Court. ia the niatter of -panj tlije petitioner subisiits Uiat the parties to fby me Act of 1986 aiid Section 3(l)(a5 of tlie Uabiiity of the husband towards Uie ^nt. for Iddat period and, therefore, fhe Uie same is ui contravenuon ot yecUou India reuorted in AIR 2001 concluded as under:- '36. WJzile upholdiru^ up our a^ndusiofis : Couri hoids tfzat: 1. A Muslim huk and fair pro^ ivife zyhicJz as weil. Sucf extending by the h'u.sbc^ ofSection3(li 2. Liability qf Afi GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50,000. CM<lf<rt<flT1 ^l+1<!lf ^f FS^ iFa-S^K '^^TRm^n^T ^nts Rs. 5000/- and also Uie aoiouut of ofRs. 10,000/-. Apart from fhis, the |ted to pay Rs. 300/- per Bionfh till the ufupugned order, it is observed Uiat fhe the uiteri^retation given by Uie Suprenie EaiAanj% and anofner ~i?- unien M •C 3958 whereta ia para 36, it has been the validitif ofthe Act we may su?n band is Uable to ?nake reasonable 'sion for the future of the divorced ^vioizsly indudes her mainienance be^ond a reasorK^ble ai^d fmr provision the iddat period must be made id wiimn the iddai period in terms fa) ofihe Aci, ^slim husband to his divorced wife XI-HC—78 3'^T ^WW^, ^»Tfi^4!<S, fsf^iyy €) ^TI^T^T'f^NF ^^ 3TI^T 5b^i<=h <^' <^ ^ ^ ^ A ^) G» ^' ^ ^ o . ,2.5c /^o&^ ^tRdl sb^lcb •••—"•••—-—••-•—-••-••-'••—•^ 200 3^?T ^il^ ("'j^f^^T) ..[. '^TNT ^Tf ^TT^I und^r anszng maintenanc 3. A divorced and who i iddat Section 4 oj\ liable to properties according woman tfid\ qf me reiatt\ ihe Magistr{ establishedi maintenand^ The 74, 15and\ Uusliin woinan who has not remanied not able to maintain hef^elf afier cnn proceed as provided under the Act agaiiwt her relatives who are ^iainiain her in proporiion to the ^Limich ihey inherit on her deaih ^) Miislim law from sizch divorced \4.cliny hcf chitdren andpafents. Ifany ^es being unable io pay jnnintenance, ^te may direci ihe State Wakf Board under the Act to pay such 5. Suice the order inipi fhe uiterpretation given Dasilal Latifi aaad aiaotfaer the impzigned order aad t^ie in exercise ofjurisdiction 6, The petition being aad it is accordnigly disnii^ 'WzlfeT5ft^ 'Wraf ^fe^ <P?(^1< '^^tRw^^r Section 3{l)(a) of the Act to paij is not cjQnfined to iddat periQd. provisi^zs of the Act do noi offend Anicles p1 of the Constitiition of India.' inip^gned i|>y has been passed ta accordaace wifh. tlie Supreme Court in. the Biatter of (supra), tliere is no illegaMty or itifinaiity io. sanie does not call for any iaterfereuce Section482 Cr.P.C. of siibstaiice is iiable to be disniissed .sed, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ilnder d^void