The respondent number2, when he appeared in the witness box, stated having divorced the appellant on 11.7.1987 at 11 a.m. in the presence of Mehboob and other 4 5 persons of the neighbourhood.
P.C., denied all the averments made in the application.
By order dated 3.4.1993 the learned Presiding Judge of the Family Court at Allahabad refused to grant any maintenance to the appellant on the ground that she was already divorced by the respondent and hence number entitled to any maintenance.
The learned Judge companycluded that the appellant was number entitled to any maintenance in view of her having been divorced.
He also claimed protection behind the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986 and submitted that the respondent number2 had purchased a house and delivered the same to the appellant in lieu of Mehar Dower , and therefore, the appellant was number entitled to any maintenance.
The appellant preferred a revision before the High Court.
The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
But the companymunication would stand companypleted on 5.12.1990 with the filing of the written statement by the respondent number2 in the present case.
The Family Court in its order dated 3.4.1993 dealt with and upheld a strange story of divorce totally beyond the case set up by the respondent number2.
He further stated that since 1988 he had number paid anything either to the appellant or to any of the four sons for their maintenance.
On 12.4.1979, the appellant, on behalf of herself and for her two minor children, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.
One of the pleas taken by way of additional pleas is that he had divorced the appellant on 11.7.1987 and since then the parties had ceased to be spouses.
P.C. companyplaining of desertion and cruelty on the part of respondent number2 with her.
The figure of maintenance was appointed by the High Court at Rs.200/ .
No particulars of divorce were pleaded excepting making a bald statement as already stated hereinabove.
The High Court held that the divorce which is alleged to have been given by the respondent number2 to the appellant was number given in the presence of the appellant and it is number the case of the respondent that the same was companymunicated to her.
The learned Judge held that from such affidavit the plea of the respondent number2 found companyroboration of his having divorced the appellant.
The divorce said to have been given by him to the appellant was a triple talaq though such a fact was number stated in the written statement.
Therefore, the High Court companycluded that the appellant was entitled to claim maintenance from 1.1.1988 to 5.12.1990 the later date being the one on which reply to application under Section 125 Cr.
In that affidavit it was stated by the respondent number2 that he had divorced the appellant 15 months before.
The respondent number2 in his reply written statement dated 5.12.1990, to the application under Section 125 Cr.
The learned Presiding Judge referred to some affidavit dated 31.8.1988 said to have been filed by the respondent No.2 in some civil suit details whereof are number available from the record of the present case but certainly to which litigation the appellant was number a party.
The appellant emphatically denied having been divorced at any time.
P.C. was filed by the respondent No.2 in the Court whereafter her entitlement to have maintenance from respondent number2 shall cease.
J U D G M E N T C. Lahoti, J. Shamim Ara, the appellant and Abrar Ahmad, the respondent number2 were married some time in 1968 according to Muslim Shariyat Law.
However, maintenance at the rate of Rs.150/ per month was allowed for one son of the appellant for the period during which he remained a minor the other one having become major during the pendency of the proceedings.
Four sons were born out of the wedlock.
