LAWS(MAD)-1991-10-103

HAJA MOHAMMED Vs. MOIMOON

Decided On October 25, 1991
Haja Mohammed Appellant
V/S
MOIMOON Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the husband against the order of the Family Court, Madras in M.C.No.297 of 1988 passed under S. 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, directing the appellant to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month with effect from 2.3.1987. The respondent herein filed the petition M.C.No.297 of 1988 against the appellant under S. 125 claiming maintenance and the case of the respondent is as follows:

(2.) THE appellant married the respondent on 21.5.1984 according to Islamic rites and thereafter they lived together at Madras upto February, 1985. Though sufficient money and articles were paid to the appellant he was not satisfied with them and he insisted upon the respondent to bring Rs. 20,000/ - from her mother's house. She could not bring the same and thereafter the respondent was driven out of the house in February, 1985. During her absence the respondent lived with one Rohini. After February, 1985 the appellant neglected and refused to maintain the respondent. The respondent has no income of her own and she is unable to maintain herself. The appellant is working as a conductor in Pallavan Transport Corporation and earning Rs. 1000/ - per month and he gets about Rs. 5,000/ - per month as a film actor.

(3.) THE Family Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, found that in February, 1987 the appellant dissolved his marriage with the respondent by pronouncing Talak thrice. However, the Family Court came to the conclusion under the provisions of the Act, even after divorce, a former husband is liable to make a fair and reasonable provision and maintenance to the divorced wife. The Family court held that the respondent is entitled to receive a reasonable and fair maintenance from the appellant and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 500/ - per month towards her maintenance with effect from 2.3.1987. Aggrieved by the said order of the Family Court the appellant has preferred the present appeal.