Introduction: Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.PC
The Patna High Court reaffirmed that a Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) even after divorce. The ruling applies if her former husband has not made sufficient provision for her livelihood during the iddat period or afterward. The Court clarified that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, does not override remedies available under Section 125 Cr.PC.
Case Background
The petitioner, a Muslim woman, married the respondent in 2007 as per Islamic rites. They had a daughter from the marriage. She alleged that her husband and in-laws demanded an additional dowry of ₹2,00,000. Upon her refusal, she was subjected to cruelty and ousted from her matrimonial home. She filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and sought maintenance of ₹20,000 per month for herself and her daughter. She claimed her husband earned ₹30,000 per month from a boutique business in Mumbai and had additional sources of income.
The husband denied the allegations. He claimed he divorced her through triple talaq in 2012 in a village panchayat. Moreover, he asserted that he had paid her Dainmehar and maintenance for the iddat period. The husband also accused her of adultery and refused to provide further financial support.
Petitioner’s Stance
The wife challenged the Family Court’s decision, which granted her ₹1,500 per month from the date of its order and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. However, it did not provide maintenance for her minor daughter. She argued that the awarded amount was insufficient. The maintenance should have been granted from the date of the original application, not from the Family Court’s ruling.
Court’s Ruling
The High Court found no substantive evidence of adultery. The High Court ruled that no substantive evidence of adultery existed. It dismissed the husband’s divorce claim as irrelevant since he failed to prove lifelong financial support for his wife during the iddat period. The Court also observed that the woman had not remarried and lacked the means to support herself and her child. The Court also noted that the woman had not remarried and was unable to support herself and her child.
Final Verdict
The Court ruled that both the wife and daughter were entitled to maintenance. Considering the husband’s financial obligations, including aged parents and a second wife, the Court ordered him to pay ₹2,000 each to the wife and daughter, totaling ₹4,000 per month. The petition was allowed, ensuring financial security for the petitioner and her child.
