NEWASE ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a revision under Sections 397/401, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 19-4-99 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Case No. 175 of 1997.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that he has already divorced opposite party No. 2 oral ly and also by a deed dated 2-12-96, which has been signed by him as well as by op posite party No. 2. That therefore, op posite party No. 2 was not entitled to main tenance after 2-12-96. THE learned Judge, Family Court considered the evidence in detail. He observed that the revisionist examined himself and Maqbool D. W. 2. Maqbool is a resident of the village of the applicant and is not a witness of Talaknama. THEre are other witnesses of Talaknama, but none of them has been examined. THE presence of Maqbool, who is a resident of his village at the time of Talak, is improbable. Opposite party No. 2 denied the execution of Talak.