LAWS(MPH)-2000-1-39

RAFIK SHAH Vs. FARIDA BI

Decided On January 31, 2000
RAFIK SHAH Appellant
V/S
FARIDA BI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. is directed by the petitioner non-applicant husband against the order dated 25. 3. 1997 passed by C. J. M. , Ratlam in M. J. C. No. 30/95 whereby his application dated 28. 10. 1996 was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/applicant Farida Bi (wrongly typed as Faniha Bi) was married to the petitioner on 14. 4. 1993. On 17. 7. 1996, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance allowance against the petitioner in the Court of C. J. M. , Ratlam. On 2b. 10. 1996 the petitioner made an application that he had divorced the respondent on 2. 9. 1996, therefore, in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), her application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was not maintainable. Learned C J. M. after hearing both ' parties passed the impugned order on 25. 3. 1997 and held that the respondent was not divorced woman on 17. 6. 1996, when the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was made, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable and the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was maintainable and rejected the application. This order is being challenged in this petition.

(3.) MR. Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. by the respondent, the petitioner divorced her, therefore, her application filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. was not maintainable in view of 'the Act' which had come into force on 19. 5. 1986. The learned C. J. M. committed error in holding that as the respondent was validly wedded wife on 17. 6. 1996 when the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. was made, therefore, the Act would not apply. Mr. Ahiwasi, learned Counsel for the respondent, supported the impugned order and contended that the respondent had not been validly divorced, therefore, the application under Section 125 of the Act was maintainable.