P. C. for herself as well as on behalf of the three children born during the wedlock, who were living with her, since the respondent had refused and neglected to maintain them.
300/ per month as maintenance for each of the three children.
400/ per month for herself and Rs.
During the wedlock, three children were born two daughters and a son.
P. C Does Section 3 1 b of the 1986 Act is any way affect the rights of the minor children of divorced muslim parents to the grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.
By special leave to appeal the appellant has companye up to this companyrt.
J, A short but interesting question involved in this appeal, by Special Leave, is whether the children of muslim parents are entitled to grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.
P. C. in the High Court challenging the companyrectness of that part of the order of the revisional companyrt which upheld the right to maintenance of the three minor children under Section 125 Cr.
P. C. in the Court of Shri A. K. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gopalganj, on 13.2.1992.
P. C. insofar as the children are companycerned was number affected by the 1986 Act in any manner.
Petition under Section 482 Cr.
With the said modification, the miscellaneous application of the respondent husband was partly allowed.
After the Trial Court granted the petition under Section 125 Cr.
P. C. The respondent, thereupon, filed a Criminal Misc.
P. C. and that the third child, who was only 1 1/2 years of age on 19.1.1993, was entitled to receive maintenance till she attained the age of two years i.e. till 19.7.1993 from the date of filing of the application i.e. 13.2.1992.
150/ per month per child.
The order dated 27.7.1993 was challenged by the respondent through a Revision Petition in the Court of 2nd Additional Judge, Gopalganj.
She claimed a sum of Rs.
While the matter rested thus, the respondent divorced the appellant and thereafter filed an application in the Trial Court seeking modification of the order dated 19.1.1993, in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act .
P. C. in favour of the appellant and the three minor children, the respondent divorced the appellant and filed an application seeking modification of the order of maintenance in view of the provisions of the 1986 Act.
P. C. for grant of maintenance to the minor children and that Section 3 1 b of the 1986 Act also entitles a divorced woman to claim reasonable and fair maintenance from her husband for maintaining the children born to her before or after her divorce from her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of the children and that the said provision did number affect the right to maintenance of the minor children granted by Section 125 Cr.
The application was companytested, though it was only the appellant, who adduced evidence at the trial and the respondent husband did number lead any evidence.
The 1986 Act was enacted as a sequel to the judgment in Mohd.
The Trial Court further found that the right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.
The Act, thus, aims to protect the rights of Muslim Women who have been divorced.
150/ per month for each of the three minor children, till they attain the age of majority.
Insofar as the appellant is companycerned, the Trial Court held that in view of the provisions of the 1986 Act the appellant wife after her divorce was entitled to maintenance only for a period of three months i.e. for the period of Iddat.
On 16.7.1994, the revisional companyrt dismissed the revision petition holding that the 1986 Act does number over ride the provisions of Section 125 Cr.
By an order dated 27.7.1993, the Trial Court modified the order dated 19.1.1993, insofar as the grant of maintenance to the appellant is companycerned while maintaining the order granting maintenance to each of the three minor children.
ANAND.
The Trial Court found that the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain his wife and children and that they had numbersource of income or means to maintain themselves and accordingly held that they were entitled to the grant of maintenance from the respondent.
By its order dated 19.1.1993, the Trial Court directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the appellant at the rate of Rs.
P. C. is thus the moot question?
On the date of the application filed under Section 125 Cr.
200/ per month for herself and at the rate of Rs.
P. C. i.e. 13.2.1992, the children were aged 6 years, 3 years and 1 1/2 years.
The preamble to the 1986 Act reads An Act to protect the rights of Muslim women who have been divorced by, or have obtained divorce from their husbands and to provide for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
A learned single Judge of the High Court accepted the plea of the respondent that vide Section 3 1 b of the 1986 Act, a divorced muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her previous husband for her minor children only for a period of two years from the date of birth of the companycerned child and that the minor children were number entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.
On certain disputes arising between the parties, the respondent allegedly turned the appellant out of the matrimonial home alongwith the three children then aged 6 years, 3 years and 1 1/2 years and also refused and neglected to maintain her and the children thereafter.
P. C. after the companying into force of the 1986 Act.
After turning the appellant out of the matrimonial home, the respondent took a second wife, Shahnawaz Begum, Claiming that the appellant has numbermeans to maintain herself and the children and that the respondent had both agricultural land and was carrying on business in electrical appliances as well and had sufficient income and means to maintain them, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.
The trial companyrt modified its order qua the appellant, restricting the grant of maintenance to the period of Iddat but maintained its earlier order insofar as the children are companycerned.
P. C. for the period till they attain majority or are able to maintain themselves whichever date is earlier or in the case of female children till they get married or is their right restrict to the grant of maintenance only for a period of two years prescribed under Section 3 1 b of the Muslim Women protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986 numberwithstanding Section 125 Cr.
While the revisional companyrt declined to interfere with the order of the Trial Court, the High Court based itself on Section 3 1 b of the 1986 Act to hold that the grant of maintenance to the children of divorced muslim parents, living with their mother, was restricted to the period prescribed under the said section numberwithstanding the provisions of Section 125 Cr.
P. C. The appellant married the respondent according to muslim rites on 27.10.1980.
P. C. at the rate of Rs.
The appellant had filed a petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.
The facts are number in dispute.
