RAEESA BEGUM Vs. SHABBIR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under Section 397 Cr.P.C, is directed against the order of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, dated August 6, 1980, modifying the order of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Pilibhit, dated April 23, 1980.

(2.) Briefly, the facts giving rise to this revision are that Smt. Raeesa Begum, applicant, was married to Shabbir Ahmad, opposite party. They got one son and two daughters. Somewhere in the month of July 1976, the applicant went to her parent's house. While she was proceeding there, her husband, opposite party, detained two children but the minor daughter was allowed to accompany the applicant. While she was staying with her parents she sent several messages to her husband for taking her to his house, but he refused to call her. Ultimately, she herself went to her husband's house, but he did not allow her to enter his house, instead he and his brother Siddiq beat her and she was not allowed to stay in the house. In August, 1977 the applicant moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Munsif Magistrate, Pilibhit, for the grant of maintenance to herself and to her child. Shabbir Ahmad opposite party, applicant's husband entered appearance. He filed written statement and contested the applicant's case. He asserted that he was always ready to keep the applicant with him but she was not ready to reside with him. He denied to have maltreated the applicant or beaten her. He further stated that he sent several notices by post to the applicant and to her father for sending her to his house but all went unheaded. In fact he made an application before the District Magistrate on 13th July, 1977 raising grievance that his wife had been detained illegally by his father-in-law.

(3.) The parties produced evidence in support of their case before the trial court. Thereafter, the learned Munsif Magistrate by his order dated 23rd April, 1980 awarded a sum of Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance allowance to the applicant and Rs. 50/- per month to the minor female child and directed the opposite party to pay the same every month to the applicant.