The Single Judge Bench comprising of Justice Jyotsna Sharma of the Allahabad High Court allowed a petition filed by Smt Zahida Anjum, seeking maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the CrPC. The Court observed that the husband had a burden to prove his claim of pronouncing triple talaq on the wife, and merely stating it in the written statement was not sufficient. The Court noted that the petition was initially filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the technical error in mentioning the wrong provision should not hinder the grant of appropriate relief if the petitioner is entitled to it. The Court held that a common man might not have minute knowledge of legal provisions, and it is the Court’s duty to look for solutions and not dismiss the case on technical grounds.
The Court examined the judgment of the revisional court, which set aside the wife’s maintenance claim based on the alleged triple talaq by the husband. However, the Court found that the revisional court’s findings were against legal precedents and settled principles of law. The revisional court failed to follow the judgments of the Apex Court on the issue of maintenance for divorced Muslim women. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the concerned court to decide the issue of enhancement of maintenance amount within three months from the date of the judgment.
Additionally, the Court considered the judgment in Shayara Bano vs. Union of India, where the Supreme Court set aside the practice of “talaaq-e-biddat” or triple talaq. The Court stated that the law pronounced by the Supreme Court would apply to matters where the parties’ rights are yet to be adjudicated, including the present case.