KAHKASHAN Vs. UMESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the Revisionists and Sri Lokendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Kahkashan, the Revisionist No. 1 alongwith her three minor daughters filed an application under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 3/8/2009 claiming maintenance from the respondent of Rs.20,000.00 per month for herself and 10,000 per month each for her three daughters i.e. a total of Rs.50,000.00 per month. The facts as mentioned by her were that the Applicant had married the Respondent Umesh Kumar Gupta @ Abbas Hussain ''Khun Khun' on 24/10/2002 as per Muslim rites and rituals at the residence of the Applicant. The Nikahnamma had been filed as an annexure to the application. After such wedding the applicant started living in the Respondent's home and three daughters, namely, Neha aged about seven years,Kiran aged about five years, and baby Hina aged about two months, were born out of the wedlock. Initially the Respondent took good care of the applicant and her children but later on started neglecting them as three daughters were born to her one after another and he wanted a son. The youngest daughter baby Hina was born on 15/5/2009 and the Respondent left the Applicant 20/5/2009. Because of financial difficulty faced by the Applicant she had to withdraw her daughters from City Montessori School and get them admitted in a cheaper school. She was facing great hardship as she did not have any skill and no income of her own, whereas the Respondent was a very well-known businessman having a factory for manufacturing of batteries by the name of Kaali Power and he earned about Rs.4.00 lakhs per month. As such the Respondent was having sufficient means to look after his wife and children i.e. the applicants.

(3.) The Respondent filed an objection to such Application Paper No. Kha-9, where he denied having converted to Islam and marrying the Applicant. It was stated that a forged Nikahnama had been produced in court by the Applicant and her father. Since there was no wedding performed, there was no question of the Applicant going and living in his home or three daughters being born out of the wedlock. The Applicant had herself stated that the wedding took place on 24/10/2002. However the eldest daughter was seven years old at the time of filing of the application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. in August, 2009, which was not possible. It was alleged that the Respondent had no concern at all with the children of the Applicant. The Respondent was a staunch Hindu by birth. He had got married some eighteen years ago and his wife was still alive and he had two children from the said wedlock and they were living a happy family life. The Application had been filed by the Applicant as a result of a conspiracy between her and her father, Mohd. Raees Hussain. Forged documentary evidence like receipts of school fees had been produced. The names of all three daughters were of Hindu origin whereas the applicant herself stated that she was Muslim and the Respondent had converted to Islam and performed Nikaah with her. The Applicant was a scheming lady of loose character who had been caught by the police for immoral flesh trade. The news regarding the same was also published in the newspapers on 24/3/2001 much before the alleged marriage on 24/10/2002 and Case Crime Number 18 of 2001 under sec. 3 (1) 5/7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1986 had been registered and Charge sheet had been filed against her and other accused in the competent court. A certified copy of the FIR and also the news item published in the newspapers were filed along with the objections by the Respondent. The Respondent was never named Abbas Hussain, Khun Khun and he had never converted to Islam. The Applicant and her father were used to extorting money from people, On the basis of threats to lodge false cases against them. The Applicant had also mentioned wrong residential address of the Respondent only to prevent the Respondent from coming to know of the filing of the application for maintenance and responding to the same appropriately and on time. The Application was filed with deliberate concealment and misrepresentation of facts and ought to be dismissed on this ground alone.