BIBI ASIRAN Vs. MOBARAK ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against a part of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.1991 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, in Case No. 4(M) of 1979, whereby the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate has made a declaration that the applicant is entitled to realise arrears of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from 23.6.1983 to 23.7.1988 and thereafter she will get the amount of Rs. 4,250/- which is said to have been deposited on account of Mehar and the amount of maintenance during Iddat period before the Anjuman.

(2.) The relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition may briefly be stated. The applicant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') claiming maintenance and the application had been allowed on 23.6.1983 and the opposite party (the husband) was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 150/-per month to the applicant. A revision petition was filed against that order bearing Cr. Revision No. 160 of 1983 which was dismissed. Thereafter the applicant filed a petition for realisation of the arrears of maintenance from 23.6.1983 to 18.12.1986 and Distress warrant was issued for realisation of the said amount. Thereupon the opposite party filed a petition on 14.6.1988 under Section 127 of the Code stating therein that due to intervention of certain relations and well wishers the parties had entered into compromise under which the opposite party was to pay Rs. 1000/- only in satisfaction of all the arrears of maintenance and the applicant was to live with the opposite party. He further alleged that the circumstances have changed because of coming into force of the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. To that application of the opposite party a rejoinder was filed by the applicant asserting that the alleged story of compromise was totally false and concocted and that she had never made any compromise with the opposite party. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate after considering the petition dated 14.6.1988 filed by the opposite party and the rejoinder filed by the applicant passed an order in favour of the applicant. Against that order another revision petition was tiled bearing Criminal Revision No. 23 of 1989. The Re visional Court in that revision passed an order, operative portion of which reads as follows :

(3.) In pursuance of that direction the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, after allowing the parties to examine their witnesses, has passed the impugned judgment.