HUSSAIN GOUSUSAB MUJAWAR Vs. NAGINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who is the husband and father respectively of the Respondents, has opposed an application filed by the Respondents under Section 125 of Cr. P. C., claiming maintenance from the Petitioner and the orders passed thereon by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this Petition will be referred according to their rank in the Trial Court.

(2.) The Petitioners filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. to order payment of monthly maintenance at Rs. 3,000/- each, by the Respondent. The marriage between the first Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized on 5-5-1986, as per the customs which prevailed in their community. Out of the wedlock, they have one son and two daughters. Second Petitioner is in the custody of the first Petitioner. It was stated in the application that, the Respondent ill- treated the first Petitioner for silly reasons and behaved inhumanly. It is alleged that, demand made to bring cash and gold from the first Petitioner's parents, having not been complied with, she was driven out of her matrimonial house and hence, both the Petitioners are staying away from the Respondent, who has neglected them, without any justifiable reasons and though has sufficient means, has refused to maintain them. It was stated that, the Respondent is working as a Sub- Divisional Engineer in Telecom Department and is drawing salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month. Though he has an obligation to provide maintenance, the same was not provided.

(3.) The Respondent has filed objections. The relationship between Petitioners and Respondent was not disputed. However, the application was opposed stating that, it was on account of attitude of the first Petitioner in not co-operating with him to lead marital life, they are living separately. It was contended that, he divorced first Petitioner in accordance with Muslim Law by giving 'Talaq' and also sent 'Talaqnama/Talaq Notice'. As such, in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1996, (for short the 'Act'), the application is not maintainable and he is not liable to pay maintenance to the first Petitioner. It was stated that, even otherwise, first Petitioner is having sufficient income to maintain herself and also the 2nd petitioner. He further stated that, he has married subsequent to the divorce with first Petitioner and got other children and as such, it is his duty to maintain second wife and children.