Skip to content


Kamarunisa Vs. Farid Gafur Sayad and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appln. No. 499 of 1979
Judge
Reported in1980CriLJ1390
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1908 - Sections 125
AppellantKamarunisa
RespondentFarid Gafur Sayad and Another
Excerpt:
.....powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. - 1100/- was deposited as mahr as well as for maintenance for the iddat period......one and not sufficient for her maintenance. in these circumstances it cannot be said that the wife's application was not maintainable. in the application filed the wife has claimed maintenance at the rate of rs. 100/- per month for her and rs. 100/- for her son. the trial court has granted rs. 60/- per month to the son. the learned extra additional sessions judge came to the conclusion that the total emoluments which the respondent husband farid sayed was getting were not less than rs. 450/- per month. the son was only aged two years. in these circumstances, in our opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the wife is paid maintenance at the rate of rs. 90/- per month in addition to rs. 60/- per month already awarded for her son. this maintenance awarded to the wife viz. of rs......
Judgment:

Dharmadhikari, J.

1. In this case the marriage of petitioner Kamrunnissa with respondent Farid Gafur Sayed took place in the year 1973. Thereafter she was divorced on 10th of February 1976. The petitioner filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself and for her son on 6th April, 1976. Ultimately after scrutinising the whole evidence on record the learned trial Judge granted Rs. 60/- per month as maintenance, so far as the son is concerned. However, the petitioner's application for her own maintenance was dismissed. Being aggrieved by this order she filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court also dismissed the application filed by her obviously relying upon the decision of this Court in Ruksana Parvin v. Shaikh Mohammad, . It is this order which is challenged in this application. With the assistance of the Counsel we have gone through the whole record.

2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussein Fisalli Chothia, : 1979CriLJ151 , it cannot be disputed that the application filed by the wife is maintainable. In this case Rs. 1100/- was deposited as Mahr as well as for maintenance for the Iddat period. The amount of Rs. 1100/- deposited and paid is a meagre one and not sufficient for her maintenance. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the wife's application was not maintainable. In the application filed the wife has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month for her and Rs. 100/- for her son. The trial Court has granted Rs. 60/- per month to the son. The learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the total emoluments which the respondent husband Farid Sayed was getting were not less than Rs. 450/- per month. The son was only aged two years. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the wife is paid maintenance at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month in addition to Rs. 60/- per month already awarded for her son. This maintenance awarded to the wife viz. of Rs. 90/- per month will become payable from 1st of July, 1976, i.e. after the period if Iddat was over. Hence the criminal application filed by the wife is allowed and the respondent husband is directed to pay Rs. 90/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance allowance from 1st July, 1976. It is needless to say that this amount is in addition to the amount of Rs. 60/- per month which is payable for the son.

3. Rule absolute.

4. Ordered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //