AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.P. Awasthy, J.—It is a petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by husband Sajid Akhtar, agninst whom an order of payment of maintenance allowance to his wife was passed by the Trial Court and which was maintained by the second A.J. to S.J. Khandwa with certain modifications.
Contention for the present petitioner is that the non-applicant was divorced by the present petitioner and therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the application filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for receiving maintenance allowance by the present non-applicant from the present petitioner was not maintainable.
It has to be seen in this regard that this mixed question of fact and law as to whether the non-applicant was or was not divorced by the present petitioner was gone into and was thoroughly considered by the two Courts below. Both of the said Courts found that since the present petitioner allegedly gave divorce in writing, it was essential that the said written deed of divorce ought to have had been proved in accordance with law. It was not the contention of the petitioner that he had orally divorced the non-applicant,
In view of the said two consecutive findings of fact and law given by the two Courts below, this second revision petition filed under the garb u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Please see AIR 1993 S.C. at page 1361 (Dharampal v. Samshri). Further, it is not one of those rarest of rare cases where the extraordinary powers conferred u/s 482 Cr.P.C. deserve to be invoked. Please see AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajanlal and Ors.). Consequently, the present petition is rejected.