SHAIKH HANIF Vs. SULTANA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this criminal revision application, the applicant challenges the judgment and order dated 27.01.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. E174 of 2004 thereby directing the petitioner to pay maintenance amount @ Rs.800/- p. m. to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- p. m. to the respondent No.2, payable from the date of petition. In so far as the claim in respect of respondent No.3 is concerned, the same is rejected. The applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs.800/- to the respondent No.1 and shall bear of his own.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal revision application, are as follows:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no proper opportunity has been given to the applicant, as he was not allowed to canvass his case fully, adequately and finally because of the approach adopted by the learned Judge of the Family Court in a lopsided manner, tilting the balance in favour of the respondents herein and quite antagonistic manner to the applicant. The theory of divorce was clearly pleaded in the written statement. As is customary, the Talaq is given orally and the same is normally followed by a written divorce. The Family Court did not allow even the statement on oath to be recorded on the point of Talaq, as the applicant was constantly stopped not to agitate the proof of Talaq by the word of mouth on oath, as he was not allowed to put answers to the queries made by his advocate. The learned Judge of the Family Court has not followed the provisions of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel submits that though it has been pleaded that third child is not of his paternity, but the learned Judge has totally ignored the provisions of Section 112 of the Evidence Act and made observations that the petitioner has made a false statement that he is not the father of third child. There is error committed by the learned Judge in imposing fine of Rs.800/- when the provisions of law under which the present proceedings are filed by respondent No.1, do not at all permit to impose any such fine or costs. The respondent No.1 is falsely covering up her own sin of imputing paternity of an illegal child. The learned counsel for the applicant, thus submits that the criminal revision application deserves to be allowed.