AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard. By means of this petition moved u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 03.03.2012, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in Case No. 29 of 2011, Smt. Munija Vs. Shahnajar, u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., declining the interim maintenance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the trial court has erred in law in rejecting the application for interim maintenance moved by the petitioner (wife) against her husband Shahnajar (present respondent No. 2). Attention of this Court is also drawn to the case Shabana Vs. Imran (2010) 68 ACC, 284 and it is argued that even a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance u/s 125 of Cr.P.C.
I agree with learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that even a divorced muslim woman is entitled to maintenance u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., as laid down by the Apex Court. However, in the present case, in view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that trial court has committed no error of law in rejecting the application for interim maintenance of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent No. 2 Shahnajar had taken plea before the trial court that the petitioner Munija, after divorce, has already got remarried to a third person.
In the above circumstances, trial court rightly felt necessary to record the evidence before granting maintenance sought by the petitioner, and at least for the interim maintenance, it was not found to be a fit case.
Therefore, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 03.03.2012, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in declining the interim maintenance. Accordingly, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily, with the observation that the trial court shall decide the application moved u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., as expeditiously as possible, so that if the applicant found to be entitled for maintenance, after recording the evidence, her claim is not unnecessarily delayed.