Home > Judgement > Justice Dhingra: CrPC 125 Analysed wrt minor daughter

Justice Dhingra: CrPC 125 Analysed wrt minor daughter

Crl.M.C.No. 2094/2010 Page 1 of 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: July 28, 2010 Date of Order: 12th August, 2010 + Crl.M.C.No. 2094/2010 % 12.08.2010 Gulam Rashid Ali … Petitioner Through: Mr. K.M.M.Khan, Advocate Versus Kaushar Parveen & Anr. … Respondents JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. JUDGMENT
By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 2nd March, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate granting maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month for the minor daughter of the petitioner who is living separate from the petitioner with the mother. The sole contention raised by the petitioner before this Court is that in view of Section 3(1)(b) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 the right of the child to claim maintenance from father after two years of divorce of the mother does not survive. I consider that this contention is a baseless contention. Even a wife who has been divorced under Muslim Law is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after Iddat period. Supreme Court in Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan Crl.Appeal No. 2309/2009 decided on 4th December, 2009 had observed that petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C would
Crl.M.C.No. 2094/2010 Page 2 of 2
be maintainable (for the wife) before Family Courts so long as she does not remarry and the amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be restricted for Iddat period only. The Supreme Court observed that the cumulative effect of reading of judgments of Supreme Court in Danial Latifi & Anr. v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740 and Iqbal Bano v. State of UP & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 785 makes it crystal clear that even a Muslim divorced woman would be entitled to claim maintenance from a Muslim husband till she has not married. This being a beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit must accrue to the divorced Muslim women. 2. I consider that the benefit under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be denied to a minor daughter because of any restrictive provision contained in Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. August 12, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn

Advertisements
Categories: Judgement
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: