The aforesaid order passed by the learned Family Judge came to be assailed before the High Court in Criminal Revision wherein, the High Court after adumbrating the facts referred to the decisions in Anita Rani v. Rakeshpal Singh1, Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v. Chander Prabha Devi2, Rakesh Kumar Dikshit v. Jayanti Devi3, Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of P.4, Paras Nath Kurmi v. The Session Judge5 and Sartaj v. State of P. and others6 and came to hold that though the learned principal Judge, Family Court had number ascribed any reason for grant of maintenance from the date of application, yet when the case for maintenance was filed in the year 1998 decided on 17.2.2012 and there was numberorder for interim maintenance, the grant of Rs.2500/ as monthly maintenance from the date of application was neither illegal number excessive.
Thereafter, the learned Family Judge appreciating the evidence brought on record came to opine that the marriage between the parties had taken place on 26.4.1992 that the husband had given divorce on 18.6.1997 that she was ill treated at her matrimonial home and that she had companye back to her parental house and staying there that the husband had number made any provision for grant of maintenance that the wife did number have any source of income to support her, and the plea advanced by the husband that she had means to sustain her had number been proved that as the husband was getting at the time of disposal of the application as per the salary certificate Rs.17654/ and accordingly directed that a sum of Rs.2500/ should be paid as monthly maintenance allowance from the date of submission of application till the date of judgment and thereafter Rs.4000/ per month from the date of judgment till the date of remarriage.
Being deserted and ill treated and, in a way, suffering from fear psychosis she took shelter in the house of her parents and when all her hopes got shattered for reunion, she filed an application for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000/ per month on the foundation that husband was working on the post of Nayak in the Army and getting a salary of Rs.10,000/ approximately apart from other perks.
1120 of 1998 did number accept the primary objection as regards the maintainability under Section 125 CrPC as the applicant was a Muslim woman and came to hold even after the divorce the application of the wife under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable in the family companyrt.
A reply was filed to the same by wife asserting that she had neither the knowledge of divorce number had she received an amount of Mehar.
The High Court took numbere of the fact that the husband had retired on 1.4.2012 and companysequently reduced the maintenance allowance to Rs.2000/ from 1.4.2012 till remarriage of the appellant herein.
Usual to sense of human curiosity and wifes right when she asked him she was assaulted.
At that juncture, she sought help of her parents who came and took her to the parental home at Lucknow where she availed treatment.
The application for grant of maintenance was resisted with immense vigour by the husband disputing all the averments pertaining to demand of dowry and harassment and further alleging that he had already given divorce to her on 18.6.1997 and has also paid the Mehar to her.
Being of this view the learned Single Judge modified the order passed by the Family Court.
During the proceeding before the learned Family Judge the wife appellant examined herself and another, and the respondent husband examined four witnesses, including himself.
The situation gradually worsened and it became unbearable for her to stay at the matrimonial home.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave, at the instance of the wife.
