TAYYABA BIBI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition and the criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have arisen from the same proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and for avoiding repetition are being disposed of by a common judgment. Lower courts record has been summoned and perused by this Court, parties have been heard at length at admission stage and the revision and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are being disposed of finally at this stage according to Rules of the Court.

(2.) What appears is that Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui is an employee in Mono Section of Government Press, Allahabad. In 1982 Smt. Tayyaba Bibi filed objection before the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui claiming monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- with the allegation that she is his wedded wife, that she is unable to maintain herself that her husband deserted her and has another wife from whom he has four children. Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui resisted the application and denied his marriage with Tayyaba Bibi. He raised other grounds also. After oral and documentary evidence Magistrate dismissed the application of Tayyaba Bibi by judgment dated 10th February, 1988. He disbelieved her marriage with Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui. Then Tayyaba Bibi preferred revision before Sessions Judge, which was decided on 16th November, 1988. The revisional court allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and order of the Magistrate and remanded the case to the Magistrate for fresh decision in the light of the observations made in the judgment. Revisional court further directed that the case was pending since 1982, it was, therefore expected that the same should be decided at the earliest. Revisional court directed the parties to appear before the Magistrate on 30th November, 1988.

(3.) Record of the Magistrate shows that on 30th November, 1988 Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui did not appear before the Magistrate. Case was ordered to be put on 12th December, 1988, on that date Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui was again absent. Case was adjourned to 22nd December, 1988. On that day also Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui was absent. It may be noted that on 12th December, 1988 court of the Magistrate was vacant, on 22nd December, 1988 the Magistrate was on casual leave. On 22nd December, 1988 case was adjourned to 12th January, 1989. On the date so adjourned Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui was again absent. Hence the case was ordered to be put up for exparte arguments on 17th January, 1989. Arguments were heard on 17th January, 1989 and then on 18th January, 1989 exparte judgment was delivered by the Magistrate. He upheld marriage. He found grounds for awarding maintenance. He awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of application.