DUDEKULA MAHBOOB SAHEB Vs. DUDEKULA SHAHNAZ BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 6.6.2008 in Crl.R.P.No.70 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa district confirming order dated 12.11.2007 in M.C.No.10 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the respondent in the maintenance case and petitioner in the revision petition, whereas the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners in the maintenance case and respondents in the revision petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the Maintenance Case.

(3.) IT is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-husband that it is clearly admitted by the first petitioner as P.W.1 that her marriage with the respondent took place in a Dargah performed by Qazi as per the customs of Islam and no Hindu marriage will be conducted in Dargah and accordingly a marriage certificate was issued and the behaviour of first petitioner towards the respondent was very cruel and she insisted upon him to set up a separate family leaving apart his parents, which he could not accede, by reason of which, she left her matrimonial home without informing him and later he sent a letter dated 23.4.2006 addressed to her through his counsel conveying Talak for which she sent a reply with false pleas which proves that it was enforced, but she filed the maintenance case claiming to be Hindus and not Muslims, whereas she admitted as P.W.1 that a Qazi had performed their marriage at Kamalapuram Darga on 23.7.1999 and a Nikhanama was drafted then attested by two witnesses which was corroborated by her father P.W.2 and when the parties happened to be of Doodhekula community the relevant customs of Islam practiced by them are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the question of payment of necessary maintenance to the petitioners. IT is further contended by him that even though the relevant papers evidencing Talak was sought to be marked, the enquiry Court refused to do so on the ground that it was not necessary and in any case, in the corresponding counter filed by the respondent, it is pleaded that there was divorce between them and the respondent sent a letter conveying Talak to the first petitioner which are sufficient to hold that there was conveyance of Talak as per law and therefore Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not applicable here and she can at best claim her meher amount and maintenance for the Iddat period from the respondent by virtue of the relevant provisions of 1986 Act. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon decision in MOHAMMAD ALI v. FAREEDUNNISA BEGUM AIR 1970 AP 298.