SHAMEEM BAIG DILAWAR BAIG Vs. NAJMUNNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Perused the record.

(3.) The Respondent No.l filed Misc. Cri.Application No.49/1983 U/s 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner. It was her contention that about 8/9 months prior to her marriage with the petitioner, he had committed rape on her. She had reported this fact to her parents. She became pregnant from this relationship and later on the petitioner also accepted the paternity and responsibility of the child yet to be born. As the Respondent No.l was in advanced stage of pregnancy and expecting delivery shortly, parties agreed that the marriage of the petitioner and Respondent No.l be performed. Accordingly, as per tradition and customs of Muslim religion, marriage was performed on 8.10.1982. On the same day, she gave birth to a male child, who was applicant No.2 in the maintenance application but pending that application, the child expired. The Respondent No.l claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- p.m. Application was opposed by the petitioner. He denied that he had any sexual relations with the respondent No.l and that she had become pregnant from him. According to him when she was shown to him, she was fully covered by Parda and was sitting. Therefore, he and his relatives could not know that she was pregnant. By deceiving them, consent for marriage was taken. However, at the time of marriage ceremony i.e. Nikah she suffered pains and therefore, marriage could not be performed nor the marriage was ever consummated. Consent for the marriage was taken by concealing the true facts and therefore, even if it was performed, it was a void marriage. He also showed his financial difficulties to pay maintenance. After hearing evidence of both the parties, learned J.M.F.C. Ambajogai, allowed the application and directed him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.100/- p.m. to Respondent No.l. That order was challenged by the petitioner in Cri.Revision Application No.69/1986. Pending that Revision Application, he claimed that even if it is found that marriage was actually performed, he had given divorce to her by giving a notice dated 24.10.1986 by Registered Post A.D. and thus at least from that date the marriage had come to an end. He also deposited Rs.551/- towards Meher amount in the Court and he pleaded that in view of the divorce given by him with effect from 24.10.1986, she could not claim maintenance U/s 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, Beed dismissed the petition and rejected the plea of the petitioner that he had given divorce by issuing the above referred notice. He found that the notice was not actually served nor the divorce was pronounced nor there was any witness for the same.