Dismissed

Gaffar Khan v. Rashida Khan

Madras HC5 Sept 2014CRL RC/1465/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed a criminal revision challenging a Magistrate's order for maintenance and arrears against a Muslim husband. The court analyzed the applicability of the statutory bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and the principles in Danial Latifi regarding claims by divorced wives seeking maintenance after the iddat period.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Gaffar Khan Vs Rashida Khan — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1465 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 and 1 of 2013

¶6

Gaffar Khan ... Petitioner vs Rashida Khan ... Respondent

¶7

Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records and set aside the order dated 01.11.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3268 of 2010 pursuant to the order dated 10.08.2010 passed in C.C.No.8970 of 2007 pursuant to learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy

¶10

Challenging the order of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, passed in C.C.No.8970 of 2007 on 10.08.2010, the petitioner has filed Crl.R.C.No.166 of 2010 before learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai. Against the dismissal of such revision on 05.09.2011, the petitioner has filed Crl.O.P.No.1304 of 2014 before this Court, which has been dismissed as withdrawn on 04.07.2012 with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Thereafter, the petitioner has now moved the present revision.

¶11

Petitioner and respondent were married on 25.12.1975 and out of the wedlock, they had two children. Differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner dissolved the marriage by pronouncing 'Talaq'. Thereafter, the petitioner has married another woman and is living with her. The respondent has filed a petition in C.C.No.8970 of 2007 on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrte, Egmore, Chennai, seeking

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

maintenance in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. as also other reliefs. Under orders dated 10.08.2010, the Court below directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the respondent till she remarries. Against such finding, the petitioner has filed Crl.R.C.No.166 of 2010 before learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai and the same was dismissed under orders dated 05.09.2011. There against, the petitioner has filed Crl.O.P.No.1304 of 2014 before this Court, which has been dismissed as withdrawn on 04.07.2012 with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. In a petition filed by the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.3268 of 2010 in C.C.No.8970 of 2007 before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, seeking arrears of maintenance, the Court below has passed an order on 01.11.2012 directing the petitioner to pay arrears of maintenance of Rs.24,62,500/-, 'mahr' amount of Rs.2,11,251/- and to return the jewels to the respondent within one month from such date. Such order is challenged in the present revision.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

¶15

This revision would attract the bar under section 397(3) Cr.P.C. However, learned counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Danial Latifi and another vs. Union of India [2001 (7) SCC 740] to submit that post iddat period, the remedy of the respondent/muslim wife was to proceed u/s.4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and seek maintenance from her relatives, they being liable to maintain her in proportion to the properties which they inherit on her death according to Muslim law and that in the event of such relative not being able to pay maintenance, the Magistrate may direct the State Wakf Board established under the Act to pay the same. A reading of the decision relied on informs that the husband is liable to make provision for the needs, including maintenance, of the divorced wife within the iddat period and his failure to do so would entitle her to seek maintenance from him even after the iddat period and also by resort to Section 125 Cr.P.C. Mere fact that the trial Court has held the respondent entitled to maintenance until she remarries despite her being 60 years old could not render the order under challenge bad. Though learned counsel for petitioner submits that the bar under section 397(3) Cr.P.C. would not be applicable and the Court would look beyond the same in an appropriate case, this Court is of the view that the present is not an appropriate case to do so.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

In the circumstances, this Criminal Revision shall stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (J )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
gm
To
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Egmore, Chennai
1 cc to Mr.R. Abdulmubeen, Advocate, SR. 41833
2 ccs to Mr.C.V. Rajan, Advocate, Sr. 41763
Crl.R.C.No.1465 of 2012
KSJ (CO)
kk 17/10

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Gaffar Khan v. Rashida Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaffar Khan v. Rashida Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Annamalai Vs State of Tamilnadu

Deva Prakash Vs Roselin Deva Prakash

Rakesh P Sheth, Vs P.Devaki, Sub Inspector Labour

M.Senthil @ Senthilkumar, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

V.Ramadoss Vs the State Rep by

P.Senapathi Vs the Inspector of Police