Single judge upheld maintenance orders of Rs. 5,000/month. Court held section 125 CrPC orders survive talaq/remarriage contingencies and require proof of divorce for cancellation. Acquittal in 498-A case irrelevant to criminal revisions.
Special leaves and rule were discharged due to both petitions being dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Writ Petition No.714 of 2009 And
Criminal Writ Petition No.715 of 2009
Firoz Kasam Fancy, ) Age 46 years, ) Occupation : Agriculture, ) R/o Sheetal Colony, Nawapur, ) District Nandurbar. ) .. Petitioner.
Versus
Fehmida d/o Ahmed Bhula ) Age 41 years, ) Occupation : Household, ) R/o Shastri Nagar, Nawapur, ) District Nandurbar. ) .. Respondent.
Shri. S.A.G. Qureshi, Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for respondent.
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATE : 4th DECEMBER 2014
JUDGMENT:
2
petitioner to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Misc. Application No.35/2006 which was filed under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') for cancellation of maintenance. The proceeding under section 127 of the Code was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and that decision is confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3
4
requires such amount in view of the status of the parties.
5
land, he has given house property on rent and he has source of income. There is not much dispute about the contention of the wife that she has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself.
examined himself to give evidence in rebuttal. He has only denied the suggestions given to him with respect to his property and his income. He admitted that he has two houses at two places in the city. He admitted that he owns one bungalow. He admitted the photographs produced at Exhibit 37 and that at the relevant time the value of this construction, bungalow was around Rs. 5 lakh. He has admitted that there are two shops though
6
he tried to deny that he has given the two shops on rent basis. One document is produced like retirement deed to show that he was doing business with others. The record in respect of agriculture land is also produced and he was taking crops like sugar cane in some portion.
7
during iddat period which needs to be sufficient for the maintenance of the wife for her remaining period of life. It is settled law that in stead of giving amount in lump sum the order can be made against the husband to pay monthly maintenance and that is exactly done by the Judicial Magistrate. Only due to talaq the maintenance order cannot be cancelled in such circumstances. Further there is also question of proof of talaq as it needs be proved.
Sd/-
(T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
rsl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a maintenance order granted under section 125 CrPC can be cancelled solely on the ground of divorce.
Whether an order cancelling maintenance is erroneous even if the husband is acquitted in a separate 498-A proceeding.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Firoz Kasam Fancy
Fehmida d/o Ahmed Bhula
T.V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
