B N SAMIULLA Vs. MADINA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the Family Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 444/99 dated 9-11-2001. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the Family Court and the respondents in the present petition are the respondents 1 and 2 in the Family Court in Crl. Misc. No. 444/99. The petitioner has married the first respondent on 10-3-1996 at Davangers as per the rites and customs prevailing in the Muslim community as per the Muslim Law with a fixed mahar (Mehar) amount of Rs. 11,000/- and out of the said wedlock, respondent No. 2 herein was born on 10-4-1997. The further case of the respondents that the petitioner has demanded money from her parents. Whenever he demanded money, the available funds has been provided, but the time has come that the parents of respondent No. 1 expressed their inability to satisfy the more demands of the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner started illtreating respondent No. 1 and showing his cruel nature in beating mercilessly and even gone to the extent as alleged by respondent No. 1 that he stopped providing food, clothes and medicines and forced her to do heavy work. The further case of respondent No. 1 herein is that during the marriage, whatever was demanded by the petitioner was fulfilled and utensils and all dowry items as per the list along with the presents were given. It is further stated that prior to two days of the marriage, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid and after six months of the marriage, Rs. 15,000/- was given and it is also alleged that the petitioner has received Rs. 20,000/- from the brother of the first respondent after one month. At the time of delivery, the petitioner again demanded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to pay as a deposit to take the house which was very urgent. Accordingly the father of the first respondent has paid the said amount. When things thus stood, in the month of September, 1997, the petitioner again demanded a sum of rupees one lakh to pay the bank but, at this time the first respondent and her parents and the family members were totally refused to fulfil the demand of the petitioner. The further case of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner started beating and threatening to kill by pouring kerosene on her person or strangle her. The further case of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner has threatened her with warning that if they any body comes on behalf of her, he will brake their bones and threatended that he will finish the life. The jamat people of Davangere have made attempt to reconciliation in the matter but they have failed in talks on the ground that both families of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 have become adamant. The maternal uncle of the petitioner and a councillor took all interest to advise and to set things right by telling the petitioner, but all gone in vain. The first respondent further stated that since from more than two and half years nobody has come to take her even on festive days and specifically stated that her husband/petitioner is a very money minded person. He has timber business and run goods transport company and also having its office at Binny Company Road Davangere. Apart from this he has got dozen small business and the petitioner has refused to maintain and neglected the first respondent from his marital life and deserted her totally for the last two and half years. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, respondent No. 1 has constrained to file the petition, claiming maintenance amounting to Rs. 500/- per month to each of the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has admitted that the first respondent is his wedded wife and their marriage was solemnised on 10-3-1996 and all other contentions taken by respondent No. 1 as stated above have been denied in toto. At any point of time, he neither illtreated respondent No. 1 nor he has demanded any money from her brother or taken money as stated by respondent No. 1.

(3.) THE family Court has made one more attempt for reconciliation each other. The same also failed. Thereafter it has recorded the evidence of both the parties and framed the proper issues. The first respondent has been examined herself as P. W. 1 apart from examining P. W. 2. She has also placed her reliance on the documents Exs. P. 1 and P. 2. The petitioner himself has been examined as R. W. 1 and also placed his reliance on the documents Exs. R. 1 to R. 4. The first respondent is at present residing with her parents along with the second respondent.