TAMIZABI Vs. ZAKIRH USSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by Tamizabi wife of Zakir Hussain under which she challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Akola, passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 162 of 1984 which was heard with Criminal Revision Application no. 182 of 1984 whereby the order passed by the trial Magistrate granting maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month was set aside, with the result that the application filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be dismissed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the parties are residents of Akola living in the same locality and either of them hails from well-to-do family. The marriage between the parties was performed on 24.2.1982. The house of respondent Zakir Hussain was only 5-6 houses away from the house of the petitioner's father. According to the petitioner, she went to the house of the Respondent- husband immediately after the marriage, but the treatment received by her was very rude and shocking. It was alleged that on the very first night the respondent Zakir spat on the face of the petitioner. The gold ring and wrist watch were thrown at the petitioner and she was told to take away those articles to her father. It was also the case of the petitioner that he demanded a motor cycle. The petitioner further contended that on the next day the respondent brought one lady by name Suman and introduced her as his mistress. It was at that time the respondent is said to have demanded Rs. 20,000.00 from the father of the petitioner. Some other undisputed facts were about the exchange of notices between the parties and filing of a prosecution by the respondent against the petitioner for the charge of defamation. So also it was not in dispute that the father of the respondent husband had gifted the land ad-measuring 4.00 acres to the petitioner, but after receipt of notice, the civil suit for revocation of the gift was filed. With these facts the petitioner claimed maintenance under section 125 of the code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) The respondent-husband resisted the claim by stoutly denying that the petitioner ever came to reside with him after the marriage. According to him, the father of the petitioner informed him and his relatives that the petitioner was suffering from fever and she would be sent to respondent's house after recovery. The claim of the petitioner that she stayed in the house of the respondent-husband for three days after the marriage was refuted and consequently denied all the allegations made by the petitioner.