Patna High Court: Divorced Muslim Wife Entitled To Get Maintenance From Ex-Husband Except If She Remarried Or He Made Fair Provision For Her Future
The Patna High Court said that a reasonable and fair provision includes provision for her residence, food, clothes, and other articles.
Patna High Court
The Patna High Court held that a divorced Muslim wife is entitled to get maintenance from her ex-husband except if she has remarried or her husband has made a fair provision for her future.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the husband against the final Order of the Family Court, which directed him to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to his wife towards her maintenance.
A Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar observed, “I further find that even if it is presumed for the sake of argument for a moment that Md. ----- has divorced his wife, even then, ------ would be entitled to get maintenance from her ex-husband as a divorced wife, because it is not a case of Md. ------ that his divorced wife has remarried or he has made a reasonable and fair provision for future of his divorced wife during the iddat period.”
The Bench said that a reasonable and fair provision includes provision for her residence, food, clothes, and other articles.
Advocate Ranjan Kumar Jha represented the Petitioner while APP Anuj Kumar Srivastava represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The parties got married in 2010 as per Muslim rites and customs and subsequently, the wife (Respondent) joined the matrimonial home of her husband. However, as per the wife, just after few weeks, she was subjected to torturing by her husband and his family members, and hence, she left her matrimonial home and started living at her maternal home. She claimed that she was a pardanashi lady and she has no source of income, but her husband is not paying any maintenance to her from the year 2011, whereas he is a man of wealth and income, working in a private company at Singapore.
Hence, she claimed maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month from her husband. However, the Petitioner-husband denied that he ever subjected his wife to any cruelty. He further contended that he filed a matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights in which compromise was reached at between them, as per which his wife was to receive a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards her alimony/den mohar and expenses of iddat and thereafter, he was not required to pay anything to her in future.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances, noted, “… under Muslim Law, marriage may be dissolved by the parties by mutual agreement. However, if there is any dispute between the parties regarding mutual agreement for dissolution of their marriage, the marital status of the parties has to be decided by the Family Court which is competent court in this regard under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.”
The Court added that the disputed question of fact regarding marital status of the parties cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC which is summary in nature and it is not a case of the Petitioner that he has got any decree of competent Court to the effect that his marriage with Nazia Shaheen has been dissolved by Mubaraat on the basis of mutual agreement, whereas such decree was necessary in view of the stand of his wife who has claimed that her signature on the compromise petition was fraudulently obtained by her husband.
“… the compromise petition has hardly any evidentiary value in the eye of law, and hence, it cannot be the basis for finding of the Court that marriage has been dissolved by mutual agreement”, it also remarked.
The Court further said that the amount of Rs. 1lakh paid by the Petitioner to his wife includes even den mohar, which is even otherwise entitlement of his wife to receive.
“Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that there is no illegality or perversity in appreciation of evidence committed by learned Court below while passing the impugned order”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition and upheld the impugned Order.
Cause Title- ABC v. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION No.657 of 2022)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Ranjan Kumar Jha, Rana Pratap Singh, and Vikas Kumar.
Respondents: APP Anuj Kumar Srivastava and Advocate Najmul Hodda.
