This defence was rejected and the Special Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, U.P., allowed the said application by his order dated December 29, 1976, and directed the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.
The order of the learned Magistrate was upheld by the Sessions Judge in revision.
On February 18,1981 S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., delivered judgment on behalf of himself and Varadarajan, J., while A.D. Koshal.
On companying into force on April 1 1974 of the CrPC, 1973, the Appellant filed on September 17, 1974, a petition Under Section 125 of the said Code for maintenance for herself and the child of the marriage.
The Appellant thereupon obtained Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court.
100/ per month in all as maintenance both for the Appellant and the child, holding that the Appellant had been neglected by the Respondent without reasonable or probable cause.
40/ per month to the Appellant for the maintenance of the child.
The High Court held that being a divorced wife, she was number entitled to maintenance for herself and directed the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.
The Respondent companytended that the Appellants marriage with the Respondent having been dissolved by a decree of dissolution by a civil companyrt, she was number entitled to any maintenance under the said Section 125.
and was heard ex pane as the Respondent did number appear.
Thereafter, the Respondent approached the Luck now Bench of the Allahabad High Court Under Section 482 of the CrPC.
100/ for the Appellant and Rs.This plea was accepted and the Court by its Order dated September 24, 1981, restored the Appeal to the file and further pending the Appeal directed the Respondent to pay to the Appellant maintenance in the sum of Rs.
P. Madon, J. Both the parties are Muslims.
The Appeal reached hearing before a Division Bench of this Court companysisting of S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A.D. Koshal and A. Varadarajan, JJ.
On January 15, 1973, the Appellant obtained under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 a decree of dissolution of her marriage with her husband, the Respondent.
J., delivered a separate but companycurring judgment allowing the appeal.
There was one issue born of the marriage of the Appellant with the Respondent, namely, a son.
All the learned Judges held that the Appellant was entitled to maintenance for herself and the child This Court accordingly set aside the order passed by the High Court and restored the order of the learned Magistrate.
Thereafter, the Respondent made an application to set aside the Judgment and Order of this Court on the ground that the numberice of lodgment of the Appeal had number been served on him.
