MUNNA BABU Vs. SHANNO BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and opposite party are husband and wife respectively. Admittedly, they were married sometimes in the year 1985 under the Muslim Act. On 7-2-86, Opposite Party moved an application u/S. 3(2) of Muslim Women Protection of Rights On Divorce, Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for maintenance allowance, for Rs. 11,000.00 as MEHAR and recovery of ornaments and properties and other ornaments given to her before, at the time and after marriage. The list of such items was given alongwith the application which includes ornaments, utensils, cycle, tape-recorder, sewing machine and clothes etc. It was alleged by her in her application that after the marriage she resided with the petitioner but the petitioner used to beat her on one pretext or the other and his family members used to say that very little dowry was given. The petitioner used to threaten opposite party that either she should bring a Scooter from her father or else he would turn her out of the house and would divorce her. It was further alleged in the application that the petitioner was not a man fit for marriage and therefore, used to harass the opposite party. It resulted into strained relations between the two. Compelled by these circumstances, opposite party intimated her father, other relations, and friends who came and tried to persuade the petitioner to behave properly. It was further alleged in the complaint that about 5 months back the petitioner came and left opposite party at her father's house at Unnao by saying that he was going to Lucknow in connection with some business and he would take opposite party back on his return. When the petitioner did not turn up for several days, family members of O.P. No. 2 went to the petitioner and tried to presuade him to take opposite party back to his home. It was next alleged that on Id in the evening the petitioner came to Unnao and he demanded some money from the father of opposite party and his relation Sri Barkat Ali. When they expressed their inability to pay the amount the petitioner divorced opposite party in the presence of Sri Barkat Ali, Kalloo, Kayam Ali and Puttan and went away. Since then opposite party has been residing at Unnao with her Parents and the petitioner has not cared to maintain her.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the petitioner the allegations made by opposite party in her application were denied. It was inter alia pleaded that the petitioner had not divorced opposite party and the marriage between the two was subsisting.

(3.) Opposite Party had examined herself in support of her claim and Barqat Ali. On the other hand, the petitioner had examined himself, Smt. Momina and Mahmood Ahmad. On an appraisal of evidence, learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner had divorced the opposite party as alleged by her. Accordingly, on 26-5-87, he directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 11,000.00 as MEHAR to the opposite party, maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400.00 per month during the period of Iddat and to return the goods mentioned in the list attached with the application except ornaments and clothes. Against the said order the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the same on 19-1-88. Now, he has approached this Court by filing this petition u/S. 482 Cr. P.C.