JUDGMENT
Surinder Sarup, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of two revision petitions filed by the husband and wife respectively, and both of them are directed against the same impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmour as common question of law and facts arise.
2. Briefly the facts are that Nisar Fatima, wife, filed an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance for herself as well as her minor children Kaushal Ali, Abida Khatna and Abdul Quaume. It has been pleaded by her that she had married Abdul Hussain in the year 1973 according to Muslim rites. Above-mentioned three minor children were born from this wedlock. She is looking after them at present. The husband had left the company of the wife and minor children in February; 1990 and started living with his brothers. He also refused to maintain them. The matter was taken to the Panchayat, but the respondent did not agree. He is in the service of the Government of Himachal Pradesh as Compounder posted at Majra in Ayurvedic Dispensary and is getting a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. According to the wife, her requirement as well as that of her three minor children was Rs. 1500/- per month for their maintenance.
3. In his reply, the respondent admitted the marriage as also the fact that three minors were his children from Nisar Fatima. According to him on 4.4.1990, the wife alongwith her family members gave severe beatings to him and forcibly turned him out from the house situated in Upper Gulabgarh, Tahsil Paonta Sahib. His articles and cash were also snatched. Thereafter he lodged the report with the police at Paonta Sahib on the same day. Since that date, he is living with his brothers in lower Gulab Garh. Subsequently, because of the conduct and behaviour of Nisar Fatima and her father, the respondent is alleged to have divorced her on 7.5.1990. He admitted that he is in Government service. According to him the wife and the minor children are living separately without any cause and they are not entitled to maintenance. Moreover, as the wife -Nisar Fatima is a divorced lady, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the husband beyond the Iddat period.
4. The Court of Shri R.K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour which was seized of the matter after going through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them came to the conclusion that Nisar Fatima being divorced wife, is not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, but he allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month to the minor children. This order was passed by him on 16.4.1991.
5. Against the above order, the wife Nisar Fatima on her behalf and on behalf of her minor children, filed a revision petition which was disposed of by the Court of Shri V.K. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan on 16.4.1992. As a result of the same, the monthly maintenance of the minors was enhanced to Rs. 700/- per month.
6. Against the above impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, both the parties have come up in revision.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have gone through the pleadings as well as the evidence on the record.
8. In the revision petition filed by the husband, the enhancement of the maintenance qua the minor children from Rs. 350/- as awarded by the trial Magistrate to Rs. 700/- per month as awarded vide the impugned order has been challenged on merits. However, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also going through die pleadings and the evidence, we see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Admittedly, the husband is earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and out of that only Rs. 700/- per month has been awarded towards the maintenance of the minor children who are three in number. According to us, the amount of Rs. 700/- is on the conservative side, however, we find no ground to further enhance the same.
9. In view of the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court, the father is enjoined to maintain the minor children who are being brought up by the divorced Muslim wife. Reference in this connection may be made to case reported as Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim, JT 1997 (7) SC 164=II (1997) DMC 356 (SC).
10. Insofar as the revision petition filed by the wife is concerned, it is the admitted case of the parties that she is a divorced wife. In view of this fact, she is not entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period, which under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, consists of three menstrual periods and in case of a woman who is not menstruating, for a period of three lunar months. Divorce in the present case took place on 7.5.1990. Whereas, under the law, she was entitled to maintenance for a period of three months thereafter, which expired much before the order was passed by the trial Magistrate on 16.4.1991. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported as Secretary, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and Anr. v. Syed Fatima Nachi, 1996 Crl. LJ 3488, as also the special provision of Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband. This being the legal position, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the learned Courts below as regards the refusal of the maintenance to Nisar Fatima, petitioner.
11. For the reasons recorded above, both the petitions fail and are dismissed.