New Delhi:The Supreme Court was surprised by the Uttar Pradesh state counsel opposing a plea for maintenance made by a Muslim woman and her minor daughter from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.PC.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said: “We must mention two strange facts. As noted earlier, the revision application preferred by the appellants (wife and the minor daughter) was vehemently opposed by the counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, as specifically noted in the order dated April 8, passed by the high court”.
The bench said in both the appeals, there is a counter affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, U.P, opposing the appeals and the legality of the impugned order has been justified in the affidavit. "The approach of the State in taking the side of the husband in a maintenance case, to say the least, is very strange", said the bench.
The bench said, in fact, the counsel, who appeared for the state, was under a duty and obligation to act as an officer of the court and to assist the court in arriving at a correct conclusion. The apex court recorded these observations in an order passed on February 12, while hearing an appeal by the woman and her daughter.
The petitioners moved the apex court challenging the Allahabad High Court order, which decreased the monthly maintenance amount from Rs 12,000 per month fixed by the family court by Rs 2,000. “In Criminal Appeal…..by the impugned order dated August 26, 2021, without hearing the appellants, the high court, by a very cryptic order, reduced the maintenance by a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Obviously, the High Court could not have passed such an order ex parte, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants”, said the apex court.
The apex court said in another order dated April 8, 2022, of the high court, even a notice was not issued to the husband and based on the opposition made by the counsel appearing for the state of Uttar Pradesh, the revision application was dismissed. "We are surprised to note that the counsel for the State has taken up the cause of the husband," the bench said.
The apex court set aside the high court order and sent it back for fresh consideration. Partly allowing the appeal, the bench restored the family court order. “Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad will list the revision application(s) for directions before the roster Bench on 11.03.2024 in the morning session, when the first appellant, the first respondent and the second respondent will appear before the concerned Court for fixing the date for hearing of the revision applications”, said the bench.
The bench ordered this order would be forwarded to the secretaries of the Home and Law Departments for the State of Uttar Pradesh. “A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Secretaries of the Home and Law Departments for the State of Uttar Pradesh. We, however, clarify that the State Government of Uttar Pradesh will not blame or penalise the Advocates who represented it before this Court”, said the apex court.
The apex court, in a separate case, reserved judgment on a question whether a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, in view of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
