DILDAR HOSSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows:-

(2.) In the background of this revision the fact in a nutshell is that an application was filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad thereby praying for granting of maintenance in terms of provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself and her minor child @ Rs. 20,000/- p.m. and Rs. 10,000/- p.m. respectively. The petitioner filed objection therein contending that opposite party No. 2 was divorced by him and as such the provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application as the parties were Muslims. The opposite party No. 2 was entitled to protection as per provisions of Muslim Woman (Protection) of Rights and Divorce Act, 1986 and not under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The opposite party No. 2 had initiated proceedings under Section 498A/302, IPC against the petitioner and his family members. Subsequently, an amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties whereby the opposite party No. 2 agreed to accept a one time future maintenance, the amount towards iddat period and a sum of Rs. 5 lacs for herself and her minor son. The said amount was also duly received by the opposite party No. 2 and acceptance of such sum of money was recorded in an affidavit duly executed by the opposite party No. 2. So, she is not entitled to any further sum as maintenance. The amount already paid was sufficient to provide maintenance for her and her minor child. The petitioner is an unemployed person and is living under the supervision of his father who provides for his fooding and clothing.

(3.) I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the rival parties and carefully examined the impugned order.