# Islam alias Islam Uddin v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 291
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-03-11
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/islam-alias-islam-uddin-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39924
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2All] Islam alias Islam Uddin V. State of U.P. and others
291
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'

%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6. $*$5:$/ -
7+( +21·%/( 6. $*$5:$/ -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

,VODP DOLDV ,VODP 8GGLQ
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 1. -DIUL
6KUL 6KDKEXGGLQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
$*$

&RGH
RI
&ULPLQDO
3URFHGXUH

6HFWLRQ ± 0DLQWHQDQFH ±*UDQW RI ±
,Q DEVHQFH RI DQ\ VSHFLDO UHDVRQV LQ WKH
RUGHU PDLQWHQDQFH RI PLQRU GDXJKWHU WR
EH JUDQWHG IURP WKH GDWH RI WKH RUGHU
RQO\
+HOG ±3DUD
7KH
SXUSRVH
EHKLQG
LQWURGXFLQJ
WKLV
UHOLHI LQ &RGH RI &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH LV
QRW WR DOORZ DQ\ YDJUDQF\ WR DIIOLFW WKH
OLIH RI WKH PDUULHG ZRPDQ RU WKH PLQRU
FKLOGUHQ ,W KDV QRW JLYHQ DQ\ ZRPDQ D
ULJKW
WR
XVH
LW
DV
D
WRRO
WR
ZUHDN
YHQJHDQFH DJDLQVW WKH KXVEDQG ,I WKH
SHUVRQ IDLOV KH LV OLDEOH WR VLPSOH MDLO
WHUP EXW LW ZLOO IDLO WR VHUYH WKH VSLULW
EHKLQG WKH HQDFWPHQW RI WKLV VHFWLRQ
7KH FRXUWV PXVW QRW DOZD\V EH JXLGHG E\
FRPSDVVLRQDWH IHHOLQJV RU GLVSRVLWLRQ ,W
LV D PXVW WR KDYH D IDLU ORRN LQWR WKH
FDSDFLW\ WR SD\ RI WKH KXVEDQG DV ZHOO
,Q WKH SUHVHQW FDVH WKH DSSOLFDQW WKH
KXVEDQG ZDV QRW RQ WKH ZURQJ VLGH EXW
LW ZDV WKH ZLIH KHUVHOI 7KH GDXJKWHU
VXIIHUHG
GXH
WR
KHU
EHFDXVH
VKH
DEDQGRQHG KHU KXVEDQG¶V URRI ZLWKRXW
DQ\
YDOLG UHDVRQ RU D SURSHU FDXVH
7KHUHIRUH LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW VKDOO EH PRVW
LUUDWLRQDO WR EXUGHQ WKLV DSSOLFDQW IURP
WKH GDWH RI WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned A.G.A.

2. I have gone through both the
judgements one of the Judicial Magistrate
1st, Jaunpur dated 11.03.1998 as well as of
the revisional court dated 19.01.2001. On
merits learned counsel for the petitioner is
not able to assail the judgements of the
two courts. The trial court has only
granted
maintenance
to
the
minor
daughter. So far as the wife was
concerned he was of the opinion that she
is not entitled to maintenance and
therefore
her
application
is
not
entertainable under section 125 Cr.P.C. It
has also been held that she was living
without any valid reason away from the
company of her husband and the applicant
has never declined to maintain her.
Moreover, she is permitted under the
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights)
Act, 1986 to claim maintenance from the
Waqf Board if she is unable to maintain
herself. So far as this girl is concerned the
only challenge thrown by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to the grant of
maintenance
to
her
is
that
this
maintenance should have been granted
from the date of the order and not from
the date of the application. The reason
behind this submission is that the law
does not permit to do so unless special
reasons are recorded by the court below. I
have gone through the entire judgment but
I am unable to find any special reason
having been recorded by the trial court.
Even the judgement in revision does not
contain any such reason. Learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 Sri Ali
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
292
Hasan has argued that this application for
maintenance was contested by opposite
party for full 11 years i.e. from the year
1989 till early 2001 when the revision
was decided by the revisional court.
According to him this itself is a good
ground for maintaining the order passed
by the trial court in favour of the minor
daughter respondent no. 3. After hearing
the submission of both parties I am of the
opinion that by doing so this Court will
saddle the applicant with a burden which
will be humanly not possible for him to
discharge at the rate of Rs. 300/- per
month. The applicant will be liable to
make payment of Rs. 3,600/- per year for
11 years when multiplied this amount will
come to over Rs. 45,000/-. By doing so
this court will be committing the error of
refusing by implication the benefit of the
order to this minor. For this applicant it
will be impossible to pay such a huge
arrear. He is a labour earning Rs. 50/- to
60/- per day now. In the circumstances if
the petitioner is asked to pay the
respondent no. 3, minor daughter from the
date of the order it will suffice. In case of
failure to pay due to his incapacity this
order will not serve any useful purpose.
The purpose behind introducing this relief
in Code of Criminal Procedure is not to
allow any vagrancy to afflict the life of
the married woman or the minor children.
It has not given any woman a right to use
it as a tool to wreak vengeance against the
husband. If the person fails he is liable to
simple jail term but it will fail to serve the
spirit behind the enactment of this section.
The courts must not always be guided by
compassionate feelings on disposition. It
is a must to have a fair look into the
capacity to pay of the husband as well. In
the present case the applicant, the
husband, was not on the wrong side but it
was the wife herself. The daughter
suffered
due
to
her
because
she
abandoned her husband's roof without
any valid reason or a proper cause.
Therefore, in my opinion it shall be most
irrational to burden this applicant from the
date of the application.

3. The trial court will calculate the
amount due from the petitioner from the
date of his own order and the applicant
shall be intimated about the same. The
trial court is further directed to divide the
entire amount so calculated into three
instalments. The first instalment shall be
paid by the petitioner within one month
from the date he will be directed by the
trial court. The second instalment shall be
paid after 45 days and the last instalment
will be paid by the petitioner after another
45 days from the second instalment. He
will further go on paying each month's
instalment regularly on every 10thdate of
successive
month.
Any
failure
in
complying with this direction will result
into complete negation of the present
order and he will be liable to pay amount
from the date of application as directed by
the trial court by its order dated
11.03.1998.

With this direction this petition
stands finally disposed of.