Md. Firoz Khan v. Sumayla Bismil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1271 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Md. Firoz Khan Son of Late Jahir Khan, resident of Village- Anjuman Tola Pawariya Tola, Bagaha, P.S.- Bagaha, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Sumayla Bismil Wife of Md. Firoz Khan, Dauhgter of Ali Imam Bismil, resident of Mohalla- Chikpatti, Motihari Town, P.S.- Motihari Town, DistrictEast Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Respondent/s :
Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 10-01-2024 An order dated 17th July, 2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari allowing an application for maintenance filed by the opposite party no.2 and granting maintenance allowance in her favour at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month and also at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month for the maintenance of their minor child, is under challenge in the instant Revision on the ground that this court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner/husband on 11th January, 2016 directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month from February 2016 towards maintenance. Secondly, the petitioner divorced the opposite party no.2 by pronouncement of talak, and thirdly, he has no financial capacity to make payment of Rs. 6,500/- per month towards
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1271 of 2018(3) dt.10-01-2024 2/3 maintenance allowance to his wife.
2. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. I have also perused carefully the impugned order.
3. At the outset, this court likes to record that a direction to pay certain sum of money as a condition for anticipatory bail cannot be treated as an order of maintenance passed by superior court and the learned Judge, Family Court is not bound by that order. At best, the petitioner/husband can make a prayer for adjustment of the said amount in the trial court in execution proceeding. Secondly, it is no longer res integra that a divorced wife belonging to mohammadan faith is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Danial Latifi & Anr. vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740 which has been followed consistently in subsequent decision. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Judge considered the evidence on record in detail and passed the impugned order, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned.
4. However, the petitioner is given liberty to make appropriate application in the execution proceeding for adjustment of the sum of Rs. 2,500/- which he has been going
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1271 of 2018(3) dt.10-01-2024 3/3 on payee as per the order passed by this court in Cr. Misc. No. 39472 of 2015.
5. With the above order, the instant Revision is dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) Guddu/- U