# Razia Revisionist v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 596
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-06
- **Case number:** J. Crl. Revision (D) No. 475 of 2008
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/razia-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-48274
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973: Section 125 - The divorced
Muslim women is entitled to claim maintenance
from her husband even after expiry of period of
iddat as long as she does not remarry. (Para 11)
Revision Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cited cases:-

## Text

596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with the deceased. But it is settled law that
the only circumstance of last seen will not
complete the chain of circumstances to
record the finding that it is consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and, therefore, no conviction on
that basis alone can be founded."

15. After looking into the material
available on record, I found that the court
below has not taken into consideration the
other circumstances and material available
before him collected by the I.O. and passed
the order only on the basis of the statement
of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 which is not proper
course. The trial court has also not verified/
identified the parentage of the revisionist
whose father is Ali Ahmad whereas P.W. 1
has categorically stated in the examinationin-chief that the name of the accused is
Sagir s/o Muneer, which is also to be
enquired by the court below.

16. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, I set aside the impugned order
dated 11.04.2014 and remand the matter to
the court below, who will pass fresh order
within four months from today keeping in
view the observations made hereinabove.

17. The revision is accordingly
allowed. No order as to costs.

18. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the court below for necessary
compliance, forthwith.
----------
(2022)04ILR A596
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR,
J.
Crl. Revision (D) No. 475 of 2008

Razia ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ashok Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A., Abdul Jabbar

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973: Section 125 - The divorced
Muslim women is entitled to claim maintenance
from her husband even after expiry of period of
iddat as long as she does not remarry. (Para 11)
Revision Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cited cases:-

1. Danial Latifi & anr. Vs U.O.I. AIR 2001 SC
3958

2. Shabana Bano Vs Imran Kham Criminal
Appeal No. 2309 of 2009 (followed)

3. Rajnesh Vs Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 (followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. The application seeks condonation
of delay in filing the criminal revision.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

3. None appears for respondent no.2.

4. Since cause shown in the affidavit
filed in support of application for
condonation of delay in filing the instant
revision is satisfactory, the application
for condonation is allowed and delay in
filing the instant revision is hereby
condoned.
4 All. Razia Vs. State of U.P.
597

(Order on the memo of Revision)

1. Heard Shri Avinash Srivastava
holding brief of Shri Ashok Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State
as well as perused the record.

2. None appears for respondent no.2.
However,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist submits that the present revision
is pending since 2008 and even objections
have not been filed by respondent no.2 and
the matter has never been argued by
respondent no.2.

3. The present revision has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
11.4.2008 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Pratapgarh
passed in Criminal Revision No.54 of
2007, whereby the order of trial Court
dated 23.1.2007 has been modified. The
maintenance
allowance
of
Rs.1000/-
awarded in favour of the revisionist no.1
has been canceled or set aside and
maintenance
allowance
in
favour
of
revisionist nos. 2 and 3 has been reduced to
Rs.250/- per month from Rs.500/- per
month each.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist submits that learned trial
Court vide judgement and order dated
23.1.2007 has allowed the application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the
revisionist after adjudicating five issues.
All those issues have been decided in
favour of the revisionist. Aggrieved by
the order passed by the trial Court,
respondent no.2 filed the revision before
the
revisional
court,
wherein
the
impugned order dated 11.4.2008 has been
passed.

5. Submission of learned counsel for
the revisionist is that the revisional Court
has wrongly relied and misinterpreted the
judgment of Danial Latifi and another vs.
Union of India reported in AIR 2001 SC
3958 by allowing the revision. He submits
that revision has been allowed only on the
ground that since the revisionist no.1 has
been divorced by respondent no.2 both are
governed
by
The
Muslim
Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986
and therefore in view of judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Danial Latifi (supra), after enforcement of
this Act, the divorced Muslim women is
entitled to get maintenance under Section 3
and Section 4 of the aforesaid Act even
after the stage of iddat and therefore she is
not entitled to receive maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. In support of his
arguments, he has relied on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan passed in
Criminal Appeal No.2309 of 2009.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that till date not a single penny has
been given by respondent no.2 to the
revisionist.

7. On due consideration and perusal
of the record as well as the impugned
judgment passed by the trial court, it is not
in dispute that respondent no.2 is a person
of having sufficient means to maintain his
divorced wife and minor children. Issue
no.1 has been decided by learned trial
Court in favour of the revisionist. Likewise
he has neglected to maintain his wife and
minor children. The revisionist is destitute
and have no source of income and
revisionist
is
entitled
to
get
the
maintenance allowance from respondent
no.2 and consequently issue nos. 2 to 5
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have been decided in favour of the claimant
revisionist.

8. It appears that revisional court has
modified the order passed by the learned
trial court and maintenance allowance
granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in
favour of respondent no.1 has been set
aside and the allowance granted in favour
of respondent nos.2 and 3 have been
reduced to Rs. 250/- from Rs. 500/- per
month.

9. From perusal of the impugned
order, it appears that the finding of fact
regarding the monthly income of the
respondent no.2 given by the learned trial
Court has been substituted by the revisional
Court by its own finding and a different
finding, which, in my opinion, is not
permissible, while exercising jurisdiction in
the criminal revision. On this ground, the
maintenance allowance awarded to the
revisionists no.2 and 3 has been reduced to
half, which is also not proper.

10. Learned revisional Court, while
setting aside the maintenance allowance
granted in favour of the revisionist no.1 by
the trial court, has relied on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Danial Latifi (Supra). The finding given by
learned revisional Court is extracted
below:-

तलाक के सबन्दु पर पक्षकारों के सवद्वान
असधवक्ता क़ी ओर से काफ़ी बिस क़ी गय़ी िै।
सनगराऩीकताा के सवद्वान असधवक्ता क़ी ओर से यि
किा गया िै सक तलाकशुदा पत्ऩी सकस़ी ि़ी रूप में
धारा 125 द०प्र०सं० के अन्तगात गुजारा ित्ता पाने
को असधकाररण़ी नि़ीं िै। इस सन्दिा में
सनगराऩीकताा के सवद्वान असधवक्ता ने मुण्डिम वोमेन
प्रोिेक्शन आफ राइि आन डाइवोसा एक्ट 1986 क़ी
धारा 03 तर्था धारा 04 के प्रावधानों पर न्यायालय का
ध्यान आकसषात कराया। धारा 03 में यि किा गया िै
सक जब मुण्डिम मसिला को तलाक सदया जाता िै तब
वि मैिर तर्था अन्य सम्पसत्तयाँ पाने क़ी असधकाररण़ी
िोत़ी िै तलाक के समय पिले पसत से यि इद्दत के
प़ीररयड के अन्दर ररजनेबुल तर्था पेपर एंव सनवााि
ित्ता पाने क़ी असधकाररण़ी िोत़ी िै। यि सामान
पिले वाले पसत द्वारा वापस सदया जाता िै। इस़ी
प्रकार से धारा 04 में यि किा गया िै सक अपने पसत
से यसद यि सनवााि ित्ता पाने में स्वयं को असमर्था
पात़ी िै तो उसका सनवााि ित्ता ररश्तेदार देगें। यसद
वि लोग ि़ी देने में सक्षम न िो तब मसजस्ट्रेि वक्फ
असधसनयम क़ी धारा 09 के अन्तगात राि वक्फ बोडा
को आदेश दे सकता िै सक तलाकशुदा पत्ऩी का
सनवााि ित्ता सदया जाय। सनगराऩीकताा के सवज्ञान
असधवक्ता क़ी ओर से नजोर 2001 वॉलूम 45
ए०एल०आर० पेज 426 डेसनयल लत़ीफh आसद
बनाम यूसनयन आफ इंसडया दाण्डिल सकया िै यि
नज़ीर मानऩीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के पाँच न्यायमूसता
गण के द्वारा यि असिसनधााररत सकया िै सक यसद एक
मुण्डिम औरत अपने पसत के द्वारा तलाक पा लेत़ी िै
और वि 125 स़ी०आर०प़ी०स़ी० के अन्तगात सनवााि
ित्ता उस पसत से प्राि कर लेत़ी िै तो यसद यि
असधकार समाि कर सदया जो ररजनेबुल जस्ट् तर्था
पेपर न िोगा । मानऩीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के किने
का तात्पया िै सक असधसनयम क़ी धारा 09 व 04 के
अन्तगात पसत को अपऩी तलाकशुदा पत्ऩी के िसवष्य
के सलये कुछ न कुछ सनवाािन के सलये करना िोगा।
यि केवल इदत्त के समय को अवसध तक के सलये
स़ीसमत नि़ीं िै । मुण्डिम तलाकशुदा औरत अपने
ररश्तेदारों के सवरूदु्घ कायावाि़ी कर सकत़ी िै सक
यसद वे ररश्तेदार सनवााि ित्ता देने में असमर्था िै तो
मसजस्ट्रेि स्ट्ेि वक्फ बोडा को आदेश सनवााि ित्ता
के सलये जाऱी कर सकता िै। इस नज़ीर के
अवलोकन से इस सनष्कषा पर पहुँचा जा सकता िै
सक तलाक शुदा पत्ऩी अपने पूवा पसत से सनवााि ित्ता
पाने क़ी असधकाररण़ी नि़ीं िै ।

- तलाक से सम्बण्डन्धत तथ्य का उल्लेि
पिले आ चुका िै। सक सनगराऩीकताा ने पिल़ी बार
तलाक को बात अपने जबाब दावे में नि़ीं कि़ी
4 All. Razia Vs. State of U.P.
599
बण्डल्क साक्ष़ी नाससर अल़ी जो सनगराऩीकताा क़ी
ओर से साक्षों के रूप में प्रस्तुत हुआ िै उसने
किा िै सक पक्षकारों के मध्य पिले तलाक िो
तलाक का चुका र्था। तलाक के समय रसजया उस
समय नकाब में नि़ीं र्थ़ी तलाक जुबाऩी हुआ र्थाA
तलाक में सलिापढ़ी नि़ी हुइा र्थ़ी। इस साक्ष़ी के
कर्थनानुसार तलाक के समय रसजया उपण्डस्तर्थ़ी
यि सतसर्थ 16-10-99 क़ी र्थ़ी सजस सदन रसजया के
उपेक्षा एवं सतरस्कृत पूणा रवैये से क्षुब्ध िोकर
जैनुउद्दोन को तलाक देने क़ी आवश्कता हुइा ।
इससे स्पष्ट िै सक पक्षकारों के मध्य तलाक वैध
रूप से प्रिाव़ी िै। इस तलाक के सलये रसजया को
ि़ी दोष़ी ठिराया जायेगा जैनुद्द़ीन को नि़ीं क्योंसक
jसजया ि़ी स्वेच्छा से मायके में रि रि़ी िै।
सनगराऩीकतााZ के द्वारा दाण्डिल उपरोक्त नज़ीर के
अवलोक्त से स्पष्ट िै सक तलाकशुदा मुण्डिम
मसिला र्थारा 125 स़ी०आर०प़ी०स़ी० के अन्तगात
पूवा पसत से सजसने मेिर तर्था इदत्त क़ी अवसध क़ी
पूरा पैसा अदा कर सदया िै सनवााि ित्ता पाने को
असधकाररण़ी नि़ीं िै । मौजूदा केस में यि़ी िै सक
सनगराऩीकताा ने रसजया को तलाक दे सदया िै
सजसके फस्वरूप रसजया सनवााि ित्ता धारा 125
फौजदाऱी के अन्तगात पाने को असधकाऱीण़ी नि़ीं
िै। सनगराऩीकताा यि स्व़ीकार करता िै सक अपने
दोनों बच्चों को सनवााि ित्ता देने को तैयार िै परन्तु
अध़ीनस्र्थ न्यायालय में सनगराऩी कताा क़ी आय को
ध्यान में रिते हुए बहुत असधक सनवााि ित्ता क़ी
धनरासश प्रदान करने का आदेश पाररत िै।

मानऩीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने ररजनेबुल
एि पेपर का ससदु्न्त िै सक वि धारा 03 मुण्डिम
वोमेन प्रोिेक्शन आफ राइि आफडाइवोि एक्ट
1986 के अन्तगात पाररत सकया गया िै। धारा 125]
के प्राध्यान इस एक्ट के लागू िो जाने से मुण्डिम
तलाकशुदा मसिला का कोई वास्ता सरोकार नि़ीं
रि जाता िै। उक्त एक्ट क़ी धारा 30 व 04 के
अन्तगात वि इदरत क़ी अवसध के पिात ि़ी
सनवााि ित्ता अपने पूवा पसत से पा सकत़ी िै।

इस प्रकार उपरोक्त सववेचना के आधार पर
मैं इस सनष्कषा पर पहुॅ चा हँ सक सवपक्ष़ी संख्या
01 रसजया धारा 125 द०प्र०सं० के अन्तगात
सनवााि ित्ता पाने को असधकाऱी नि़ीं िै। सवपक्ष़ी
संख्या 2 व 3 सनगराऩीकताा से सनवााि पाने के
असधकाऱी िैं। अध़ीनस्र्थ PRITI सनवााि ित्ता क़ी
धानरासश 500/= 500/- रूपये प्रदान के सलए
आदेश पाररत सकया िै वि इससलए जो तकासंगत
नि़ीं िै सक सनगराऩीकताा को आय का एक मात्र
साधन उसको वेतन िै यि वेतन 1500/= रुपये
प्रसतमाि िै सजसे सवपक्ष़ी ने ि़ी स्व़ीकार सकया िै।
ऐस़ी दशा में सवपक्ष़ी सं० 2 व 3 के सनवााि ित्ता
क़ी धनरासश पांच सौ रुपये से घिाकर 250/=
250/= रूपये सनधााररत सकया जाना उसचत एंव
तका संगत प्रत़ीत िोता िै। फलस्वरूप सनगराऩी
स्व़ीकार सकये जाने योग्य िै ।

आदेश

सनगराऩी स्व़ीकार क़ी जात़ी िै। अध़ीनस्र्थ
न्यायालय का आदेश सदनांसकत 23-01-2007
संशोसधत सकया जाता िै। सवपक्ष़ी संख्या 01 के
िक में सनवााि ित्ता क़ी धनरासश 1000/- रूपये
समाि क़ी जात़ी िै सवपक्ष़ी 2 व 3 के िक में
सनवाि ित्ता सदये जाने क़ी न्यू० धारासश 500/-,
500/- रूपये से कम करके 250/= दो सौ पच्चास
रूपये सदये जाने िेतु आदेश पाररत सकया जाता
िै। पक्षकार वाद व्यय स्वयं विन करेगें पत्रावल़ी
अध़ीनस्र्थ न्यायालय को वापस िेज़ी जाय ।

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sabana Bano (Supra) has held that
a divorced Muslim women can be entitled
for divorce as long as she does not remarry. Further, it has been held that
provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are
beneficial piece of legislation and the
benefit thereof must accrue to the divorced
Muslim women. It has also been held that
the divorced Muslim women shall be
entitled to claim maintenance from her
husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even
after expiry of period of iddat as long as
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
she does not remarry. Relevant paragraphs
29 and 30 of the judgment are extracted
below:-

 " 29. Cumulative reading of the
relevant portions of judgments of this Court
in Danial Latifi (supra) and Iqbal Bano
(supra) would make it crystal clear that
even a divorced Muslim woman would be
entitled to claim maintenance from her
divorced husband, as long as she does not
remarry. This being a beneficial piece of
legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue
to the divorced Muslim women.

30. In the light of the aforesaid
discussion, the impugned orders are hereby
set aside and quashed. It is held that even if
a Muslim woman has been divorced, she
would be entitled to claim maintenance
from her husband under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. after the expiry of period of iddat
also, as long as she does not remarry."

12. In view of the aforesaid
judgement of Sabana Bano (Supra), I
have no hesitation in holding that the view
taken by the revisional Court is contrary to
the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The revisionist no.1 being a
divorced Muslim women was entitled to
claim maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C. There is no illegality in the order
passed by the trial Court.

13. Accordingly, the impugned order
passed by the learned revisional Court is
set-aside in view of law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sabana
Bano (supra).

14. While passing the judgment, this
Court has noticed that the maintenance has
been awarded to the revisionist under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of the
order, which according to recent judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs.
Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC
324, should be paid from the date of
application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
and therefore, judgment being retrospective
in nature is applicable in present case.

15. Hence, the order passed by the
learned trial court dated 23.1.2007 is also
modified to the extent that the revisionist
shall be paid maintenance by respondent
no.2 from the date of filing of the
application under Section 125 Cr.PC. Any
amount already paid during the pendency
of the proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C. by respondent no.2 shall be
adjusted.

16.

The
present
revision
is,
accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2022)04ILR A600
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 650 of 2014

Dr. Ansar Ahmad Khan ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Arun Sinha, Siddharth Sinha

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - The Court did not find any
reason for interference in the judgment of the
lower court as the St.ment of the prosecutrix
against the revisionist is clear. The Court upheld
the law that in heinous crime like rape, a single
testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient for
conviction. (Para 18)