[2025:RJ-JP:40686] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 694/2010 1. Tarabano W/o Ayyub Khan Qureshi, 2. Samarin D/o Ayyub Khan Qureshi, 3. Amreen D/o Ayyub Khan Qureshi, Nos.2 to 3 are minor Through Their Natural Mother Smt. Tarabano W/o Ayyub Khan Qureshi R/o Fatehpur Sikri, Distt. Agra (U.P.) Presently residing At Gumat, Bari, Distt. Dholpur Raj. ----Petitioners Versus Ayyub Khan Qureshi S/o Mohammed Hussain, R/o Mohallan Nayabas, Gost Hatha, Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra (U.P.) ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 641/2010 Ayyub Khan Qureshi S/o Mohammed Hussain, R/o Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra (U.P.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through PP 2. Smt. Tar Bano Wife of Ayub Kha, Resident of Fatehpur Sikri, Distt. Agra Presently Mohalla Gumat Bari, Tehsil Bari, Distt. Dholpur Raj. 3. Samreen Daughter of Ayub Khan 4. Amreen Daughter of Ayub Khan Nos.3 & 4 are minor Through natural guardian Mother Tar Bano R/o Presently Mohalla Gumat Bari, Distt. Dholpur Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 694/2010 None in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 641/2010 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP [2025:RJ-JP:40686] (2 of 8) [CRLMP-694/2010] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 07/10/2025 S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 694/2010:- 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.01.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur, whereby criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 03.02.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bari on application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed qua petitioner No.1 and the meager amount towards maintenance was awarded in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the courts below have committed serious error of law in holding that since divorce has taken place between the petitioner No.1 and the non-petitioner, therefore, the petitioner No.1 was not entitled for maintenance after expiry of iddat period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no legitimate evidence on record to establish that divorce has ever taken place between the petitioner No.1 and non-petitioner. It was submitted that revisional court while deciding the revision has although given one finding that no declaration given by the kazi has been produced in evidence, yet merely on the basis of oral evidence, it was assumed by the revisional court that divorce has taken place. It is submitted that even otherwise, declaration of divorce cannot be made by the criminal court and admittedly [2025:RJ-JP:40686] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-694/2010] there was no declaration by the civil court in any civil suit declaring that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and non- petitioner was dissolved. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits in the alternative that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that divorce has taken place between the petitioner No.1 and non- petitioner, even then the finding that maintenance cannot be granted by the Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after expiry of iddat period is without jurisdiction and against the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabana Bano Vs. Imran Khan reported in (2010) 1 SCC 666. 5. It is submitted that it would reveal by perusing the order passed by the revisional court that the non-petitioner himself admitted that at the relevant time, he was earning around Rs.10,000-15,000/- per month, even then earlier the trial court granted maintenance in respect of the daughters (petitioners No.2 and 3) @ Rs.500/- and Rs.400/- per month which was subsequently enhanced by the revisional court @ Rs.1000/- per month for each. It is submitted that the amount awarded by the court below is on lesser side as it was not sufficient for maintaining the meaningful life even for the daughters. Hence, a prayer has been made to enhance the maintenance awarded by the revisional court and a request for payment of arrears has been made till the date the daughters have attained majority. 6. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the non-petitioner even in the second round. [2025:RJ-JP:40686] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-694/2010] 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order passed by the trial court as well as revisional court and stated that this criminal miscellaneous petition is rather in the form of second revision, which is otherwise barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and only in order to circumvent the statutory prohibition, this criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed. 8. Heard and considered. 9. This Court is mindful of the fact that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in narrow confines and only under the circumstances where it is apparent that miscarriage of justice has occasioned to the petitioner on account of orders passed by courts below or in any other criminal proceedings for which there is no alternative remedies is available. 10. It is equally well settled that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are of widest amplitude and are not curtailed merely because a remedy of revision has already been availed of by the petitioners. The mere fact that the revisional court has passed order under Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not take away the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of such order, provided that the case falls within the parameters laid down under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can always interfere with an order of the subordinate or even revisional court, if the same results in palpable injustice, amounts to an abuse of process, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended by any party with malafide. [2025:RJ-JP:40686] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-694/2010] 11. This Court finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr., reported in 1997 (4) SCC 241, wherein it has been held that though the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is distinct from its inherent jurisdiction, the power can nevertheless be exercised even after the revisional order to prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court. Following part of the aforesaid judgment is relevant:- "In view of the above discussion, we hold that though the revision before the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 397 is prohibited by sub-section (3) thereof, inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code and as it is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under Section 483, the High Court is justified in interfering with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside the order of the courts below." 12. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that filing of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an order passed by the revisional court is not barred in law, though such jurisdiction is to be exercised within the well recognized limits of preventing abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 13. In the instant case, the request for grant of maintenance made by the petitioner-wife has been denied by the courts below on two counts, first the divorce has already taken place and in muslim marriage after divorce the liability to pay maintenance by the husband is very limited, and second that non- petitioner offered the petitioner No.1 maintenance for iddat [2025:RJ-JP:40686] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-694/2010] period, which was refused by her and as per muslim law, a muslim woman cannot pray for maintenance after expiry of iddat period. 14. After meticulous examination of the findings given by the courts below, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was no sufficient evidence on record so as to lead to an inference that divorce between petitioner No.1 and non-petitioner has taken place. Admittedly, there was no such declaration either by the kazi of the concerned mosque, or the competent civil court placed on record. 15. Nevertheless, for the purpose of limited question involved regarding maintenance in the instant case, even if it is assumed that divorce has taken place between the parties, even then for the purpose of grant of maintenance, the findings arrived at by both the courts below are perverse to the extent to which it has been held that the muslim woman is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after expiry of iddat period. The opinion of this Court is further strengthened by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabana Bano (Supra), wherein after examining the earlier judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Danial Latifi Vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (7) SCC 740 and Iqbal Bano Vs. State of UP reported in 2007 (6) SCC 785 as well as the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, it has been categorically held that even if divorce has taken place, muslim women would be entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so long as she does not marry. It was held that beneficial piece of legislation enacted [2025:RJ-JP:40686] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-694/2010] to protect muslim women cannot be confined by raising hypertechnical issue and maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be confined only to iddat period. Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for a parallel and independent remedy of maintenance, which is not foreclosed by personal law. 16. So far as the petitioners No.2 and 3 are concerned, it has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have attained majority, yet even as per the admitted income by the non-petitioner, the maintenance awarded to petitioners No.2 and 3 was on lower side. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 641/2010 :- 17. The non-petitioner-Ayyub Khan has also filed one separate S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 641/2010, challenging the order passed by the revisional court for granting maintenance to the daughters. No body has appeared to pursue the petition filed on behalf of non-petitioner-Ayyub Khan. Even otherwise, the bone of contention of the petition filed by the non- petitioner-Ayyub Khan is that on the date of passing of the order by the revisional court, petitioners No.2 and 3 (daughters) have attained the age of majority. DECISION 18. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 694/2010 filed by the petitioners is allowed. The orders dated 19.01.2010 passed by the revisional court and 03.02.2007 passed by the trial court are modified to the extent that the petitioner No.1 shall be entitled for maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month from the date of filing of application under [2025:RJ-JP:40686] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-694/2010] Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the maintenance awarded to the petitioners No.2 and 3 is enhanced to Rs.1500/- each per month till the date they had attained the age of majority. Arrears of the maintenance shall be paid by the non-petitioner-Ayyub Khan to the petitioners within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order. 19. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.641/2010 filed by the non-petitioner-Ayyub Khan is dismissed. 20. Both the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of accordingly. 21. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /24-25