ABDUL RASHEED Vs. NASEEM BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Abdul Rasheed got married to one Naseema Begum in July 1969, according to Islamic rites and ceremonies. The spouses lived together happily for sometime. During the said period, two off-springs came into existence, one a male child and the other, a female child. The male child died having ephemeral existence in the world and the female child is surviving and she was named Riswana.

(2.) During the marital life, the husband appeared to have swerved away from the path of rectitude and developed illicit connection with a Hindu woman by name Saradha. Because of such influence, it was said, the wife meted out cruelty at the hands of the husband. Consequently, she was stated to have been driven out of the matrimonial abode in the year 1975 along with her female child. She, along with the minor female child, was stated to have taken shelter in her parents house and was seeking out their livelihood, leaving things to fate, without even claiming maintenance from the husband for his wilful refusal and neglect to maintain her and the child. When she was unable to sustain the onslaught of attack of her inability to maintain herself and her minor daughter, without there being any income or deriving any Support from her parents; she decided to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short the Code) claiming maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. In making the claim for maintenance, she would aver that her husband owns house property and three acres of arable lands, besides getting himself engaged in transacting business in tamarind for quite some years, earning a fabulous income, she, in fact, appeared-to have presented such a petition on 12.4.1984 before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (as he then was), Tiruppur, which after having been taken on file, was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrates Court (as it then was), Tiruppuram from where it appears the case was again transferred to Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, and taken on file as M-C. No. 31 of 1989.

(3.) The husband resisted the maintenance claim of the wife and the minor daughter pleading that there was neither, wilful refusal nor neglect on, his part and what had happened was that his wife deserted matrimonial abode of her own accord and therefore it is that there was no justification for her to live separately and Claim maintenance. He would alternatively plead that from the properties he owns, he was unable to derive any income and to say that he was transacting business in tamarind is shorn of the reality of the situation. He would however express his desire to pay maintenance to his minor daughter.