sIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1422 of 2007 WASI AKHTAR ..PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIWA SIDDIQUI 3. SAHABAT 4. AMOJ …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner : Mr. AlamdarHusssain, Sr. Counsel & :Mr.S.A.Nazmi For O.P.nos. 2 to 4 :Mr.Bajrangilal For the State :Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 04. 20.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner assails the order dated 14th August,2007, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sasaram, Rohtas in Maintenance Case No.4/2002, whereby the applicants (wife, minor daughter and son) have been directed to be paid a sum of Rs.1000/- each by way of maintenance. One of the applicants (son/o.p.no.4) has been directed to be paid the said amount with effect from his date of birth, whereas rest two applicants, namely wife and daughter are to be paid the amount with effect from the date of filing of the application. Opposite party nos.2 and 3 approached the court claiming maintenance on the ground that o.p.no.2 is the legally married wife of the husband(petitioner). The two applicants (o.p.nos.3 and 4) are daughter and son born out of the wedlock from the applicant- wife and the petitioner (husband). They took the plea that the wife was unable to maintain herself and that husband had neglected to maintain the applicant and her two children. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence .Oral 2 evidence was laid by the parties. petitioner (husband) took the plea that he had already divorced the applicant(wife). On a consideration of materials on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that the story of divorce (Talaque) propounded by the petitioner was not substantiated. In other words, it was found that the husband was not able to prove that he had already divorced the applicant-wife in accordance with law. After having found so, learned court below considered different aspects of the matter including capability of the petitioner to pay maintenance amount. It appears from the order impugned that the petitioner (husband) took the plea that the wife was earning as a school teacher or taking tuition. It was also alleged that she was running a beauty parlour. Learned trial court found that these pleas taken by the husband was/were not substantiated by any evidence/document adduced/brought on record. The court thus proceeded to consider the capability of the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount. On a consideration of materials on record, it has been found that the petitioner had adequate income to pay the maintenance amount to the wife, minor daughter and minor son. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is/was willing to keep the wife with him and to maintain her and his son and daughter. It is contended that there is no finding recorded by learned court below that the petitioner had neglected to maintain the wife, son and daughter. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other 3 hand, submits that the plea of divorce taken by the husband (petitioner) is in itself sufficient to indicate that he had refused to maintain the wife, son and daughter. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. Learned trial court has disbelieved the plea of the petitioner that he has since divorced his wife. Today, by filing a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record the judgment dated 07.06.2008 passed in Matrimonial CaseNo.163/06(Wasi Akhtar vs. Bibi Deeba Siddiqui) in order to show that the matrimonial case filed by the husband seeking divorce has been decreed. Mr. Bajrangilal, learned counsel for o.ps states that the said decree was passed in 2008, but till today the husband(petitioner) has not approached the court below for alteration/modification of the order in terms of the provision of Cr. P.C. Even if the plea of the petitioner is accepted, in my view, the petitioner is mandated in law to pay the maintenance to the divorced wife until she re-marries. This is the view held by the Apex Court. Learned counsel for o.p.nos.2 to 4 has produced copy of one such order of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Shabana Bano vs. Imram Khan, paragraph 29 whereof reads as under: “29. Cumulative reading of the relevant portions of judgments of this Court in Danial Latifi (supra) and Iqbal Bano would make it crystal clear that even a divorced Muslim 4 woman would be entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband, as long as she does not remarry. This being a beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue to the divorced Muslim women.” Reference may also be made to the case of Iqbal Bano vs. State of U.P. & Anr. The findings recorded by learned trial court in the light of the discussions made hereinabove do not merit any interference. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )