JUBEDA Vs. ASHFAKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>DHARAM VEER, J.</DJG> This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.4.2009 passed the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 170/2005, Smt. Jubeda & Ors. v. Ashfakh u/s 125 CrPC, whereby the said application for maintenance was rejected in respect of revisionists no. 1 to 3. However, revisionist no. 4 Km. Rayeen, minor daughter of revisionist no. 1 and the respondent, was awarded Rs. 1000/- per month towards her maintenance with effect from the date of making the said application till her marriage

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the revisionist no. 1 Smt. Jubeda got married with the respondent in the year 2001 as per the Muslim rites. Revisionist no. 4 Km. Rayeen born from the said wedlock. Before that, revisionist no. 1 had married to Rayees Ahmad in the year 1993 and revisionist no. 2 Km. Shaheen and revisionist no. 3 Rashid born from the first marriage of the revisionist no. 1. Subsequently, divorce took place between revisionist no. 1 and her first husband on 13.1.1998 and it was agreed that both revisionists no. 2 & 3 would live with their father i.e. ex-husband of revisionist no. 1. Respondent had earlier also married to one Smt. Rabia and six children born from this wedlock, but Smt. Rabia died in the year 2001. Thereafter revisionist no. 1 and the respondent married with each other and from this wedlock, revisionist no. 4 Km. Rayeen born. It was alleged by the revisionist no. 1 that soon after the marriage, respondent started to harass and torture her for dowry and ultimately ousted her from his house on 2.4.2003. Thereafter she moved the aforesaid maintenance application stating that she is unable to maintain herself and her children and claimed Rs. 5000/- per month for herself and Rs. 5000/- per month for her children i.e. Rs. 10,000/- per month in total.

(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 1.4.2009 rejected the aforesaid application in respect of the revisionists no. 1 to 3. However, the said maintenance application was allowed in respect of revisionist no. 4 Km. Rayeen and the respondent was directed to pay Rs. 1000/- per month to revisionist no. 4 with effect from the date of making the application till her marriage.