Abdul Rahman vs Akthari Begum and Another

Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Abdul Rahman admittedly bad married first respondent Akthari Begum and had also fathered second

respondent minor Rahmnia Parveen out of the said marriage. First respondent preferred an application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 21 of 1985

before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tiruchirapalli, claiming monthly maintenance for herself and her minor daughter from the petitioner alleging

that they had been wilfully neglected, it was also her case that the contention of the husband that he had pronounced ''talaq'' on 10-8-85, was

erroneous. After holding an enquiry in which the petitioner did not choose to get into the witness-box or adduce any evidence on his behalf,

Enquiring Magistrate found that the first respondent was entitled to a monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- only for the period 23-9-1985 to 12-9-

1986. Enquiring Magistrate accepted pronouncement of ''talaq'' was pleaded by the petitioner. The date of ''talaq'' was found as 13-6-1986 by the

Enquiring Magistrate. Maintenance was awarded on the basis of three months iddat period as well as the liability of the petitioner to maintain his

wife from the date of petition till the date of pronouncement of ''talaq''. 13-6-1986 is the date on which petitioner has filed his counter-statement

before the Enquiring Magistrate. Monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- reckoned from date of petition, was ordered in favour of R-2. Aggrieved first

respondent challenged the correctness of verdict of the Enquiring Magistrate, in Criminal Revision Case No. 68/1989 before the Principal Sessions

Judge, Tiruchirapalli, first Revisional Court held, that pronouncement of ''talaq'' by the petitioner in a manner known to law, had not been

established, especially when the first respondent had not accepted pronouncement of such ""talaq'' leading to her divorce. Very relevantly, the first

Revisional Court observed that the petitioner had not even chosen to get into the witness-box to speak about his having divorced the first

respondent. First Revisional Court confirmed the order of maintenance in favour of the second respondent, while directing the petitioner to pay a

monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- to his wife on and from 23-9-1985. Petitioner, aggrieved at the decision of the first Revisional Court, has chosen

to prefer this criminal revision case.

Mr. N. Sankaravadivel, petitioner''s Counsel contended, that irrespective of ''talaq'' pronounced on 10-8-1985 being valid or not, the first

Revisional Court must have given weightage to the ''talaq'' pronounced in the counter-statement by the petitioner on 13-6-1986 and, on that sole

ground, it should have negatived the maintenance claim of the first respondent except the iddat period commencing from 13-6-1986. He then

contended, that u/s 7 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, every application by a divorced woman u/s 125 or 127

of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending before a Magistrate, at a commencement of the said Act, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in

that Code and subject to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act will have to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act. That not

having been done, the entire procedure is open to challenge.

On these two grounds, I have heard Mr. K.N. Basha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

The second contention can be disposed of initially, for the provisions of the Act will come into operation only in the event of an application by a

divorced woman, u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending before the Enquiring Magistrate. At the time when the maintenance

proceeding was pending, the stand of the petitioner was that he had already divorced his wife by a ''talaq'' letter dated 10-8-85 forwarded by him

and admittedly received by her. Rightly, both the Courts did not place any reliance on pronouncement of ''talaq'' through the said letter since there

was no substantive evidence, whatever, placed by the petitioner before the Enquiring Magistrate at least by examining any one of those witnesses

who had attested the ''talaq'' letter, leave alone his not having got into the witness-box. When, on valid grounds, the enquiring Magistrate and the

first Re-visional Court were not inclined, factually to accept the ''talaq'' letter, it cannot be held that the procedure that had to be followed in the

instant enquiry, and not been complied with. This ground was also not urged before the first Revisional Court or even before the Enquiring

Magistrate. I find no merit in this contention.

Mr. N. Sankaravadivel relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Chandbi Ex Vs. Bandesha, to contend, that if the husband

chooses to tile a written statement, in an application for maintenance u/s 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by his Mohammedan wife, that he

had already divorced his wife about thirty years ago, that statement, even if the fact of such divorce was not proved, would operate as declaration

of divorce from the date of written statement and the wife is then entitled to maintenance only for a period of iddat, namely, three lunar months

from the date of written statement. I am unable to subscribe myself to such a wide proposition. The petitioner must have had the courage to get

into the witness box to depose about his having pronounced ''talaq'' and offered himself for cross-examination, especially when the first respondent

has challenged pronouncement of ''talaq'' in a manner known to law. First Revisional Court, has taken note of the case law on the subject, inclusive

of the decision cited by Mr. N. Sankaravadivel, while holding in favour of the first respondent 1 am unable to find any infirmity, whatever, in the

order pronounced by the first Revisional Court. One cannot overlook, that the provisions u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are intended

for serving social purpose. If the petitioner is aggrieved, his remedy may be before a civil forum and certainly not in a Criminal Court. This revision,

which has no merit, shall stand dismissed.