IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1173 OF 2010 BETWEEN:
Shaik Uddin Shah @ Babu AND …. Petitioner Shaik Khasimbhi and another …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1173 of 2010 ORDER:
This revision petition is filed against order dated 20-03-2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada in Criminal M.P. No.185 of 2009 in M.C. No.101 of 2007 granting interim maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the wife and Rs.400/- per month to the unmarried daughter under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner’s counsel contends that there was divorce between the petitioner and the first respondent in the year 1985 itself and that therefore the first respondent is not entitled for maintenance after the iddat period. Similar argument was repelled by the Supreme Court in SHABANA BANO v. IMRAN KHAN[1], wherein it was held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., even after iddat period, provided she remained unmarried.
3. There is no dispute in this case that the first respondent did not marry again after the divorce. So, she is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The second respondent being unmarried daughter of the petitioner is equally entitled for maintenance. Amounts of maintenance granted by the lower Court are paltry. So, it cannot be interfered on any ground at all. There are no merits in this revision petition.
4. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 23, 2010 KTL
[1] 2009(14) SCALE 331