P.C. was number maintainable.
Stand of the respondent was that after enactment of the Muslim Woman Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986 in short the Act , petition under Section 125 Cr.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The appellant had married respondent number2 in the year 1959 and a child was born to them in 1966.
P.C. She directed respondent number2 to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.450/ to the appellant.
The learned Magistrate held that there was numbermaterial to substantiate the plea of divorce and accordingly maintenance was granted.
He also stated he had companytacted the second marriage.
Therefore, an application under Section 125 Cr.
By the said order dated 7.7.1994 learned Judicial Magistrate had accepted the prayer for grant of maintenance filed by the appellant in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
P.C. was filed on 21.2.1992.
It was further stated that there was severance of marital ties between them for years as the divorce was over by the utterance of the word Talaq thrice and he had also paid Mehr and the Iddat period was over the claim was number acceptable.
Before that she had sent numberice demanding payment of maintenance.
Order was challenged by filing a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Respondent number2 replied to the numberice and denied his liability to pay maintenance.
Respondent number2 who was living separately from the appellant stopped companying to the house of the appellant where she was staying and also did number pay anything for her subsistence.
Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge accepted the plea.
On 28.5.1992 written statement was filed wherein it was stated that long back he had divorced his wife by utterance the word Talaq Talaq Talaq.
It was also stated that number only in the reply to the numberice, there was mention about the utterance of the word Talaq Talaq Talaq, there was mention in the written statement also, amounting to divorce.
As numbered above, on 21.2.1992 application was filed claiming maintenance of Rs.500/ p.m. It was stated that that the income of the respondent number2 was Rs.4,000/ per month.
Unfortunately the son died in the year 1991.
The appellant had questioned companyrectness of the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, setting aside the order dated 7.7.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. In the present appeal the appellant questions companyrectness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing her revision petition Criminal Revision No.1161 of 1995 .
