- (1.) THE revisionist is the husband and has challenged the judgment and order dated 11-11-1997 passed by Sri Chandra Bhan, Judge Family Court, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 104 of 1996 whereby he has allowed the application of the revisionist's wife-respondent under Section 125 Crpc granting maintenance al lowance to her at the rate of Rs. 200 per month with effect from 27-2-% and at the rate of Rs. 300 per month to their minorson.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel for the respondent. The application under Section 125 Crpc was made by the respondent on 27-2-96 alleging that her husband (revisionist) was demanding Rs. 10,000, T. V. , Freeze and Cooler and on non- fulfilment of this demand he turned her out of his house along with their minor son. She did not have any means of livelihood and was living with her old and aged father with her son in compelling circumstances. Her father was not at all in a position to maintain her. The revisionist is said to be earning at the rate of Rs. 3000 per month by working as Conductor on a Bus and had also 15 big has land earning Rs. 4000 per month thereby, she demanded Rs. 500 per month as main tenance allowance for herself and Rs. 500 per month for her minor son. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that he had divorced the respondent. Such written statement was filed by him before the Lower Court on 11-7-96. The submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the respondent could not be entitled to receive any maintenance allowance from him beyond the period of Iddat. On the other hand, argument from the side of respondent (wife) is that the factum of divorce had not been proved before the Lower Court and as such the revisionist could not avoid the liability of main tenance of her. From the side of respon dent reliance has been placed on the case of Zeenat Fatema Rashid v. Mohd. Iqbal Anwar, 1 (1993)DMC49 (Gau),wherein it was held that the divorce was required to be proved and plea raised in this behalf in the written statement could not be relied upon without proof of the divorce. The submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that it has been held by this Court in the case of Abdul Shakoorv. Smt. Kulsum Bibi, 1962 (1) Cri LJ 247 (Vol. 64, CN 87), that where in a proceeding for maintenance allowance by a wife, the hus band in his written statement clearly men tioned that he had divorced his wife ear lier, then the husband would be deemed to divorce his wife on the date when the writ ten statement was filed and, therefore, wife could be entitled to maintenance only for the Iddat period commencing from the date of written statement.
(3.) ON consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that Zeenat Fatma Rashid's case referred to supra relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent would not come to the rescue of the wife in the face of direct pronouncement of this Court in Abdul Shakoor's case referred to above. Abdul Shakoor's case was sub sequently followed by this Court in another case of Chunnoo Khan v. State, 1967 (4) ACC 243. Of course, in the writ ten statement the husband did not disclose any date of divorce, but he clearly averred the factum of divorce in the written state ment filed on 11-7-96 and he would be deemed to divorce respondent on the day of filing written statement. It means that in any case, he divorced his wife on the date when the written statement was filed. Therefore, the respondent (wife) is entitled to maintenance allowance from the revisionist only for the period of Iddat viz. three months starting from 11-7-96onwhich date the husband had filed written statement raising the plea of divorce. However, the revisionist is liable to maintain his minor son born from the respondent.;