MOHAMED HANIF Vs. SALEEMA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, made under S. 125, Crl. P.C. in M.C. No. 447 of 1976. The relevant facts need narration.

(2.) Tmt. Saleema the 1st respondent herein instituted an application under S. 125, Crl. P.C. before the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Poonamallee. She alleged that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that respondents 2 to 5 were born to her through the revision petitioner, that she had been living and residing with the revision petitioner for a period of six years ever since the time of marriage, that the revision petitioner developed intimacy with one Mangalaram and has married the said Mangalaram during the month of June, 1969, that the revision petitioner has failed to take care of her, that she then wrote to her husband, who was transferred to Kozhikode, to take her and maintain her but the revision petitioner replied saying that he has already pronounced talaaq and had divorced her long back that she will not be entitled to maintenance. She further alleged that the revision petitioner is earning a sum of Rs. 1,200/- and is in possession of two houses worth Rs. 75,000/- that she requires Rs. 200/- for herself and Rs. 300/- for her children at the rate of Rs. 75/- per child.

(3.) The revision petitioner resisted the application on the ground that he had pronounced an irrevocable talaaq by a registered letter, dt. 6th March 1974 addressed to the first respondent, which has been refused, that the first respondent was later informed by the Muthavalli of Kambam Mosque that she had been divorced by the revision petitioner and that the talaaq is complete and irrevocable. The revision petitioner further alleged in his counter affidavit that the first respondent had returned the Mahar amount and also the Iddat amount and therefore, the first respondent is not entitled to claim any maintenance. The revision petitioner also denied the other allegations in the petition. He has admitted that the woman referred to by the 1st petitioner is no other than the wife of the respondent whom he married on 11th June 1969 according to Islamic rites. He finally contended that his salary is not Rs. 1,200/- as alleged by the first respondent, that he gets only a sum of Rs. 600/- after all deductions, that he is willing to maintain his children and that, in any event, the amount claimed is exhorbitant.