1. An important question of law that too of general importance is as to whether a minor child of divorced Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr. P.C”) from his or her father even after he or she has attained the age of more than two years. In other words, the important question of law is whether a divorced woman can claim maintenance from her former husband for the child or children born to her from that husband before or after her divorce even after the child or children have attained the age of two years under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code despite the provisions of section 3(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short “the Act of 1986”).
2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner Mst. Noor Jehan married Salim Haji Shakoor on 8-5-1983 and the petitioner No. 2 Baby was born somewhere in 1984 from the wedlock of the said marriage. The petitioner No. 1 Mst. Noor Jehan was divorced by the non-applicant No. 2 herein Salim Haji Shakoor on 22-8-1983 and thus the petitioner No. 2 Baby was born to Mst. Noor Jehan after the divorce from her former husband-non-applicant No. 2. Both the petitioner No. 1 Mst. Noor Jehan, divorced Muslim woman, and her daughter Baby born from her former husband, namely, non-applicant No. 2 Salim Haji Shakoor, filed an application on 18-8-1986 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehkar claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the said application the claimants stated that the non-applicant No. 2 has neglected to maintain them and they have no independent income of their own to maintain themselves and, therefore, the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month should be awarded to them. In the application various incidents of mental cruelty and harassment were given, but the same are not relevant for the present purpose.
3. The non-applicant No. 2, who was the non-applicant No. 1 in the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the trial Court, contested the application filed by his former wife and the child born from the said wedlock, and denied the demand of maintenance made by the applicants. He further submitted that he has no income of his own as alleged by the applicants. He further submitted that he himself is dependant on the income of his father and still is taking education. The non-applicant, the non-applicant No. 2 herein, set up a legal objection that on the face of the provision contained in section 3 of the Act of 1986, the application filed by the applicants under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is wholly misconceived.
4. The trial Court proceeded with the inquiry of the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that the wife has failed to prove that her relation with the non-applicant-husband is still in subsistence. The trial Court found that the non-applicant has proved that he has divorced the applicant No. 1 and she being a divorced woman, her application is not tenable under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court also found that the applicant has failed to prove that she has been refused or neglected by the non-applicant or that she is entitled to get the maintenance from him. The trial Court also found that the applicant No. 1 has not proved that the non-applicant has sufficient means to pay the separate maintenance. Accordingly the trial Court by the order dated 26-7-1991 dismissed the application filed by the applicants.
5. Dissatisfied with the said order of the trial Court passed on 26-7-1991 the applicants filed a revision application before the Court of Session, which was registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 130 of 1991. The Sessions Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties held that the applicant No. 1 is the divorced woman and therefore is not entitled to claim maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. About the child the Sessions Judge held that under section 3 of the Act of 1986 the child can claim the maintenance for two years only and that period has elapsed and therefore no maintenance can be awarded to the child as well. Consequently the revision application filed by the applicants was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Buldana vide his order dated 24-11-1993.
6. Mr. A.J Khan, learned counsel for the applicants has confined this criminal writ petition only with regard to the claim of maintenance by the daughter-petitioner No. 2 Baby. This Court vide its order dated 13-7-1994 also restricted the rule with regard to the claim of maintenance by the petitioner No. 2. The submission of Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, is that section 3 of the Act of 1986 does not take away the right of the child to maintenance provided under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, the view of the two courts below rejecting the award of maintenance to the child is unsustainable.
7. The learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2 has on the other hand strenuously urged before me that the view taken by the Sessions Judge is correct view and in accordance with law and, therefore, the orders passed by the Sessions Judge and the Judicial Magistrate First Class do not require any interference by this Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2 is that section 3 of the Act of 1986 restricts the right of the child of a divorced Muslim woman from whom he or she was born, to claim maintenance only till attainment of two years and not thereafter, and since admittedly on the date of filing of the application the petitioner No. 2 was more than two years' old, the maintenance has been rightly refused by the trial Court and upheld by the Sessions Judge in revision.
8. The broad facts of the case are undisputed. Noor Jehan and Salim got married on 8-5-1983 and Baby was born somewhere in the year 1984, after Noor Jehan was divorced by Salim on 22-8-1983. On the date of filing of application claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code admittedly the child Baby was more than two years' old. The question is whether Baby cannot claim any maintenance or Noor Jehan cannot claim any maintenance for and on behalf of Baby in the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the face of section 3 of the Act of 1986.
9. To appreciate the rival controversy, it would be advantageous to refer to the relevant provisions of section 3 of the Act of 1986, which read as under:
“3. Mahr or other properties of Muslim woman to be given to her at the time of divorce. — (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a divorced woman shall be entitled to—
(a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband;
(b) where she herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children:
10. section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as under:—
“125. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain—
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
Explanation: For the purposes of this chapter,—
(a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;
(b) “Wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried.
11. A bare look at the above provisions of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code would reveal that legitimate or illegitimate minor child whether married or not, who is unable to maintain itself or legitimate or illegitimate child not being a married daughter who has attained majority where such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, is entitled to claim maintenance from his or her father having sufficient means and who has neglected or refused to maintain such child.
12. Section 2(a) of the Act of 1986 defines “divorced woman” means a Muslim woman who was married according to Muslim law and has been divorced by or has obtained divorce from her husband in accordance with Muslim law. section 3(b) of the Act of 1986 with which I am concerned in the present matter would show that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a divorced woman has been held to be entitled to maintenance of her child or children where she herself maintains the child born to her before or after her divorce from her former husband for a period of two years from the respective date of birth of such children. A plain reading of the said provision shows that if there is any provision which does not entitle the Muslim woman, who has been divorced, to claim maintenance for her child or children born from her husband, then if she maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, she is still entitled to the maintenance of such child or children for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children. But there is no provision which debars the Muslim woman, who is maintaining her child or children born to her before or after her divorce, to claim maintenance from her former husband and, therefore, section 3(b) of the Act cannot be said to create any bar for the Muslim woman, who is divorced, to claim maintenance for her child or children born to her before or after her divorce from her former husband. The legislative intention of section 3(b) appears to be that irrespective of any other law and the divorce of a Muslim woman if she is maintaining the children born to her before or after her divorce she is entitled to claim maintenance from her former husband for a period of two years from the respective date of birth of such children. It does not take away the right of the minor child to claim maintenance from his or her father even after his or her mother has been divorced. The right which is conferred on the minor child of claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be said to have been taken away by the provision contained in section 3(b) of the Act of 1986. The provisions of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provide for maintenance of both legitimate and illegitimate child are neither diluted nor made redundant by section 3(b) of the Act of 1986. Harmonious construction of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 3(b) of the Act of 1986 leads to an irresistible conclusion that the Muslim minor child or children have to be maintained by their parents, if the conditions requisite under section 125 are fulfilled. While section 3(b) entitles the divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance for the children born to her before or after the divorce from her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of the children, the said section does not take away the right of the minor Muslim child or children to claim maintenance from his or her father even if the mother has been divorced and has attained the status of divorced Muslim woman.
13. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M.A Hameed v. Arif Jan, 1990 Cri LJ 96. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held thus:
“In this case the maintenance was awarded much earlier to the commencement of act 25 of 1986 because the right conferred on a divorced Muslim woman is not taken away by act 25 of 1986 (sic). Further, as per section 3 of the Act, a divorced Muslim woman is also entitled to claim maintenance for the child for a period of two years, giving an additional safeguard to her under act 25 of 1986. But there is no provision under the Act taking away the right of the child to claim maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, even the child can claim maintenance under the guardianship against the father under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the court below has erred in cancelling the maintenance granted to the child. Therefore, the order of the court below to the extent of cancellation of maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs. 50 per month is set aside and it is declared that the child is entitled to the maintenance at Rs. 50/- per month as awarded earlier.”
14. In Rupsan Begum v. Md. Abdul Sattar, 1990 Cri LJ 2391, the Gauhati High Court after considering the provisions of section 3 of the Act of 1986 and section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code has held as under:
“section 125, Criminal Procedure Code provides for maintenance of both legitimate or illegitimate minor child/children by the parents. There is nothing in section 125, Criminal Procedure Code which exempts Muslim parents from maintenance of illegitimate minor child/children. When under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code an order for maintenance of illegitimate minor child/children can be passed against the Muslim father, it cannot be reasonably held that a Muslim father is not liable to be ordered to maintain his legitimate minor child/children above two years' old under the provisions of section 125, Criminal Procedure Code after he has divorced his wife, through whom the child/children is/are born. Proper maintenance of child is imperative. In the paramount interest of the child, laws compelling a parent to maintain his child/children are to be construed liberally so as to embrace all beneficial legislation in favour of the child. From the plain reading of the provisions of Act 25 of 1986, it is clear that provisions of sub-section (1)(b) of section 3 providing reasonable and fair provision of maintenance of minor child to be made and paid to the divorced Muslim woman by her former husband for a period of two years from the date of birth of the child/children is a right of Muslim divorced women and is incidental to the divorce and the said provision, in no way comes in conflict with the provisions of section 125, Criminal Procedure Code providing maintenance of minor child/children. As such, order for maintenance of minor child/children above two years can be passed against a Muslim father after he has divorced his wife, if the divorced wife is unable to maintain the child/children above two years who is/are living with her.”
15. The welfare of the child is a paramount consideration, he or she may be of any class, caste or creed. How can the welfare of the child be looked into if such child is not properly maintained? If the child is born from the wedlock or otherwise because section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code entitles even the illegitimate minor child to claim maintenance, it is the bounden duty of the parents to maintain him or her whether the marriage is subsisting or not, if he or she was born from the wedlock or otherwise. The maintenance of the child being an imperative factor, the Legislature while enacting the act of 1986 making provision for protection of rights of Muslim women, has not taken away the right of the minor children to claim maintenance even after divorce of the former spouses. The legislative intention being clear which flows from the plain reading of section 3(b) of the Act of 1986 and section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code the view taken by the Sessions Judge that since the child was already more than two years' old at the time of filing of application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 18-8-1986 and therefore under section 3(b) of the Act of 1986 the application is not maintainable is misconceived and cannot be sustained. I am of the view that the right of the Muslim minor child under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not taken away by section 3 of the Act of 1986 or is not confined to claiming maintenance only upto the attainment of age of two years.
16. Though the trial Court has gone into the question as to whether the applicant has proved that she has been refused and neglected by her husband and she is entitled to get the maintenance from him and whether the applicant proves that he is having sufficient means to pay separate maintenance, but the said questions considered, related to refusal or neglect by the non-applicant No. 1 to the applicant No. 1 and not with reference to the maintenance claimed by the petitioner No. 2 Baby and, therefore, requires to be gone into by the trial Court afresh in accordance with law, once it has been held that the petitioner No. 2 is entitled to claim maintenance from the non-applicant No. 2 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
17. Consequently this criminal writ petition is allowed. The judgment dated 24-11-1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1991 (Mrs. Noor Jehan v. M. Salim) and the judgment dated 26-7-1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mehkar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 94 of 1986 (Noor Jehan v. Salim) are quashed and set aside and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehkar is directed to decide the application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the claim of maintenance by the applicant No. 2 Baby in the light of reasons stated above. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehkar is further directed to expeditiously dispose of the said application with reference to the claim of maintenance by the applicant No. 2 Baby and in any case not later than two months from the date of production of order of this Court. Rule is made absolute in terms aforesaid.
Petition allowed.
Comments