.> : C^''\^^- • ,/ • -'Si'NOLE '/ ' •'" ••••.... '. .. '" '. .:... .::'. .'. •• .' -.-.'. .' "•• ' • ~1 ' ..' BEFORE THE MONOURABLE _HIGH COURTL OF CHHAttlSSARH AT BILASPUR C:6. ^f<c)5S3>/t) W.P(c). N0 /II w ^ PETmONER:- ^^ ••• :^M^ € ^^y '^y \Y ^'^^^ ^y <^^.-.... o^ RSPON&ENT:- Mohd. Umar Khan s/o Mohd. Khalil Khan aged 50 years R/o Radha Krishna Ward kawardha Presently residing at 8/B st.38 sector 4 Bihilai Tah and distt Distt.&urg C.G VERSUS Smt. Sulsan Begum d/o Khaderan Khan aged 48 years r/o RadhaKrishna Ward Kawardha P.s ^alkw^Sl^l i. Kawardha t>istt.^awarhfl9C.6 22'' •;1 . : ••, ,: ,.. .•:': ::' WRIT PETrnON UN&ER ARTICLE 226.THE CONSTrTUTIQN OF INMDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OFCERTrQRARI.MAN&AMUS ANt) OTHERWRrr/WRrTS /ORDERS ETC. J.THE PARTICULARS OF PETItIONER \ j(.)^ menl'ioned in the above tifle. PARTICULARS OFRESPON&ENTS a^-^ As mentioned S.PARrcCULARS PETITrONISMADE in the dbave-title. '^' '•:':' '.'.' •'^.^.; .. .".;.... '•':• ••"• '"•"..':: ' ••'•'•.•.'.'; • ' ';•:• '• ••' CAUaE/6RDEFiA6Aa:NSTWI-iieHThiE The petition is filed against dn order dated 27/01/201 Ipassed by ^ ^L, {••i 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR S!NGULBEN£ii : HON'BLESHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. W.P.(CtNo.333of2011 PETITIONER Mohd.UmarKhan. Versus RESPONDENT SmtGulsan Begum. Shri Aqun Yadav, counsel for the petttioner. ORALORDER (17/02/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by PrashantKumarMishra. J. Heard. (2) The SessionsJudge, Kabeerdham has altowed revisionpreferred by the respondent and has remanded the matter back to the Magistrate to decide respondent's application under SectionS, 4 ofthe Muslim Women, (ProtecUon ofRighton Dh/orce) Act, 1986 (forshort 'theAct, f986). (3) Undisputedly, ttie petitioner and respondent were married in accordance with Muslim Law and have a son from the wedlock. According to Uie petiBoner the respondent has been dh/oreed in the year 1983 and thereafter he has married with one Naflsa on 20/07/1984. (4) Pefltioner is an emptoyee of Bhilai Steel Plant and earns Rs.25,000/- per month. The respondent divorced wife eariier moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Magistrate, however the High Court of Madhya Pradesh set-aside that order and held that application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. oannot be moved by ttie divorced Muslim wife. - S s.—.A•s'SSBS?*^® ^n' ut psojoAip e leqipisqsey foSE/SZ? 7"7'S'OYZ/OtOZ "! pevodsj ueyx ue.iuii 'SA oueg eueqeifs y> ISWBWWK ui uieBe teA 'i.inoo suusjdn^ sqt 'iUn feiueQfo tueuiSpnf psionb aAoqe ^4) uo BuiAisy (5) •euiit puooss eift jo^ paujeui 3(88 eys sseiun aym uiiisnM esojoAip 10 eii| SJBUS eyi jo^ spusixe i! »nqpou8djepp(,®M»"!P8(!iui| }ou si 9861 'W sifl^o (e)(i.)e uoipeg jepun soueustuieui pue uoipsiojid jiei pue eiqeuosesj leyi ynoo euisjdns sift <q p|eq ussq seq »! <»•/QOS 2 CMMZ/ "! psvodej B(pU/ 10 UOfUff -SA JSIflOUV y Wie^ /e/ueo p jeueui sin u| (g) •uoreiAej ei|} BUI O||B Aq MB| p jojjs snoyes peyiiuiuoo sey ynoo suoisses 941 snifl pue jeyeejey} iou {>ue,)eppi,y> poued siu jo^ A|UO aoueustuieiu turep ueo }uepuodsaj 941 |eqi pueeiqBuiBtuieui }ou si eojoAip^o eiep eqt uioji SJBSA gl-isUB paAouu uoBBOiidde sifl leifl enBre p|noM jsuoiiBed eyt jo;| |esunoo peujes^ (/) •s»u9iuuouoisioep jof jeneui eifl pspueiusj seqpue tuepuodsej sifl Aq pe.uaiajd uoisiAej eifl p9 o||B seq o|eq ynoo sqi •eiqeuietujeuj lou si uoBeaidde lussejd sqi 'itoeq BUO| pejidxs BuiAeq poued pies eifi pue jepp/, 10 poysd ^o ^idxs jeye pueqsni< jey uioi) soueusiuieiu uiiep 01 pe|»i»us}ou sj luspuodsej sifl teyt BuiA.iesqo Aq jeuueiu Aieutiuns e ui uoiteoiiddeein pepsfsj Ste^siBeM peurest 8i|i (9) •-/a)o'a)'s'sy p »noqe uins duini pue q»uoui jsd -/O00's"sa 1° eoueuaiuieiu psuiiep eqg ')|JO jnoqei uaAS op o( siqeun snqt pue iflieey poo6 Buidseii }ou si sqs sSe ys esneoeq pue jieaiey uietujeut 0} 8|qe tou si sys }BIB uo!^6e||B ei|t uo gooz 'Aienuef o£"o 9861. 'PV 8lttl°t''£uo.ipes jspun uojieoiidde luesejd sifl peAoui jeyeejsifl luepuodssy fe) -3 _.^ "z ^ ,€P ft ^^. 9 'sitB5"""&* 3 '<iB».>"'-i: 'Si ' ..,'• '^•, "iV, ''"•'•^•••.^ySy'- "i *-'•' r -•3- ~ - Muslim women is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband even after the expiry of period of 'lcklaf. (10) Learned counsel forthe petitioner would then argue that the respondent is able to maintain herselfasshe isresidingwith hersonand for this reason also the subject application was not maintainable. (11) In the opinion of this Court, once the apptication under Secllon 3,4 ofthe Act, 1986 submittedby therespondentis maintainable jnlaw, the 1 fact as to whether she is able to maintain hereelf is a question of fact to be determined by the Magistrate after enquiry and on the strengfli of evidenee led bytheparties onthis aspect. (12) The leamed Sessions Court has not committed any error by allowing the revision and by remanding the matter to the Magistrate for a decision on merits. (13) The present petitton has no substance, it deserves to be, and is accordinglydismissed. __-^-~~ Sd//- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 11-^.1_>