TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Statement of Facts…………………………………………...2

2. Statement of Issues…………………………………………..3

3. Arguments..……………..…………………………………...4

4. Prayer……………………………………………………..….6

1|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Facts are that petitioner-Mumtaz Begum was married to Yusuf

Khan on 25-3-88. There was trouble in the marital relations.
Yusuf Khan started keeping one Smt. Roshan Begum as his wife
after performing 'Nikah'.
2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P. C.
stating that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and as
he has married again it was not possible for her to live with him
and she was entitled to maintenance.
3. The case set up by the husband-respondent was that he did not
cause cruelty to the petitioner and she herself left the
matrimonial home. The learned Judge, Family Court framed
three issues which are to the following effect:-
(i) Whether petitioner-Mumtaz Begum is unable to maintain
herself.
(ii) Whether respondent has sufficient means to provide
maintenance to the petitioner.
(iii) Whether the respondent has neglected the petitioner.

4. Both the sides led oral evidence. The learned Judge found issues
Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 3 was decided
against the petitioner on the ground that a Muslim husband can
have four wives at a time, and therefore, there is no just cause for
the petitioner for not living with her husband. He, therefore,
refused maintenance to her.

2|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. Appeal Against the Lower court’s Order for the

Maintenance of Wife under Section 125 Of Cr.P.C
infront of this Hon’ble High Court.

3|Page
 ARGUMENTS

1. That on the basis of the Personal Law maintenance could not be

denied to the petitioner under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
2. That No self-respecting woman would like that her husband may
contract a second marriage.
3. That If second, third or even fourth marriage is permissible under
Mohamedan Law, a Mohamedan male may indulge in that
luxury. For that he may not be liable for offence of bigamy, but if
such a behaviour proves to be an irritant to his wife and if the
same becomes a source of mental agony to her, he cannot take
shelter under his Personal Law and say that he is not liable to pay
maintenance to his wife living separately.
4. That the Explanation to Sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr.P.C.
does not make any difference between one party or the other. Nor
is there any indication to show that it applies only to parties
governed by the law of monogamy. The Criminal Procedure
Code is a general law giving a summary and speedy relief to the
destitute wife and children who are entitled to be maintained by
the husband. One cannot read into the Explanation what is not
found in it because some hardship of inconvenience is caused to
a husband governed by the Personal Law.
5. That the Apex Court in the case of Shah Bano has clearly held that
the Explanation to the second proviso to Section 125(3), Cr.P.C.
confers upon the wife the right to refuse to live with her husband
if he contracts another marriage. It has been observed by the

4|Page
 Supreme Court that Section 125, Cr.P.C. overrides the Personal
Law, if there is any conflict between the two.
6. The ratio of the above cases is that although a Muslim man has a
right to have more than one wife yet Section 125, Cr.P.C. confers
a right on the first wife to live separately if her husband contracts
second marriage, and claims maintenance from him.

5|Page
 PRAYER

For all the arguments advanced, it is most humbly requested to

the Hon’ble Court that it may

1. Pass an order upholding the contentions raised by the

Respondent Husband.
2. Pass direction to Trial court decide the question of quantum of
maintenance allowance within two months.
3. Any other order that it may pass considering the facts and
arguments of the case in favor of the petitioner.

Kuldeep Bishnoi
Counsel for the Petitioner

Dated: 07/08/2018

6|Page