MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM Vs. MEHRUNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant husband, being directed to pay maintenance at Rs. 1. 300/- p. m. to the plaintiff-wife by the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Raichur (for short the 'family Court') by Judgment and order dated 11-3-2003 passed in O. S. No. 11/02, has preferred this appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Couris Act, 1984 (for short the 'act' ).

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as stated in the plaint and set out in the impugned Judgment are as under : The parties are legally wedded, the marriage having taken place on 26-4-1987 at village Talmari, District Raichur, in accordance with the customs prevailing in their community. At the time of marriage, the parents of the plaintiff-wife are said to have paid a sum of Rs. 80. 000/- in cash, five tolas of gold and other costly household articles to the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant husband is said to have extracted some more money from the parents of the plaintiff-wife on the pretext of purchasing plots/houses at Kulsumbi colony and in that regard, the plaintiff-wife had secured Rs. 25. 000/- from her parents which was handed over to the defendant-husband. The defendant has purchased properties at kulsumbi colony in his own name. Thereafter, it is alleged that the defendant changed his attitude towards the plaintiff wife and started demanding monies at the time of festivals in order to meet his habits of addiction to drinking, gambling and womanizing. The plaintiff having come to know the vices of the defendant only 4 or 5 years prior to the suit, the defendant started harassing the plaintiff despite the elders of the community having advised the defendant to behave properly. It is further alleged that during Ramzan, prior to filing the suit in the year 2002, the plaintiff was at her parents house for the festival, where the defendant came and assaulted the plaintiff on the ground that she had failed to bear any children. It is further contended that the defendant deserted the plaintiff, since then, as a result the plaintiff had to take shelter with her aged parents. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant contracted a second marriage and is living with the 2nd wife at Raichur. When the plaintiff approached the defendant during the month of April, 2002, he said to have beaten her mercilessly, as a result of which the plaintiff wife had to register a complaint against the defendant under Sections 498-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which is said to be pending before the JMFC Court at raichur. Thereafter, it is said that the plaintiffs health deteriorated and as she required constant medical treatment for which she had to raise loans, as she did not have any income of her own. The plaintiff claims that the defendant is a wealthy person drawing a salary of Rs. 6. 000/- p. m. and has ancestral properties, the income there from, if added, would amount to not less than Rs. 15. 000/- p. m. The defendant failed to maintain the plaintiff wife and hence the suit seeking maintenance.

(3.) THE defendant,onotice, filed his written statement denying all the material averments in the suit, but however, admitted the relationship while contending that the plaintiff had given her consent for the 2nd marriage and both wives have lived together under the same roof. The defendant husband claims that the plaintiff wife on her own abandoned the matrimonial home and stayed with her parents and in spite of repeated attempts for mediation and for settlement made by the Khazi failed, therefore, the defendant on 22-5-2002 sent a written notice of talaq returnable divorce which was received by the plaintiff, but to which there was no reply. Again on 23-6-2002, the defendant is said to have sent 2nd written notice of talaq to the plaintiff by 'registered post acknowledgment due' which was returned unserved. Finally, the defendant sent another talaq to the plaintiff by written notice dated 24-7-2002 along with a Demand Draft for Rs. 4,675/- being the mehar amount and maintenance during iddath period, which was returned with postal endorsement as 'refused'. The further allegation of the defendant was that the plaintiff was hail and healthy, hails from a rich family holding irrigated lands and also a tailor, by occupation from which the plaintiff has an income of Rs. l. OOO/- p. m. The defendant claimed to be driver in the employment of the North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation drawing a salary as the only income and having no other source. He claims that the said income was meagre and was grossly insufficient to maintain his family consisting of his aged parents, unmarried sisters and 2nd wife and since the plaintiff was divorced under the Muslim Personal Law, she was not entitled to maintenance and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.