SHABANA BANO Vs. IMRAN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved with an order dated 11. 3. 2008 passed by additional Principal Judge of Family Court, gwalior in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 286/2006, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner wife against the respondent/husband.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner filed one application under section 125 of Cr. P. C. on 26. 4. 2004 against the respondent alleging therein that she has been married with the respondent on 26. 11. 2001 in Gwalior. At the time of marriage, necessary items for the use of family were given by her father, as per the list enclosed Annexure A2. After marriage, respondent and his family members played cruelty on her on demand of dowry. At the time when she was pregnant she was left by the respondent at her parental home with a threat that unless the demand about the dowry is fulfilled she will remain in the parental home. There is no source of income of the petitioner while respondent is earning Rs. 12,000 per month, hence, an amount of Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance is to be ordered in favour of her to be paid by the respondent.

(3.) ON 27. 7. 2005 the respondent gave his appearance in the Court below and filed his reply on 16. 8. 2005. As per the reply of the respondent he admitted the fact of marriage, but denied the gifts given in the marriage and also the alleged cruelty. It is submitted by him that the petitioner left his house on 30. 11. 2003 with all the ornaments and rs. 1,000 on the ground that 'she has to attend marriage'. Despite notices dated 5/2/2004 and 29. 3. 2004 and thereafter filing of the application (case No. 8/2004) for restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner did not come to live with him. On 15. 6. 2004 during proceeding of the case No. 8/2004 when petitioner put false allegations and refused to live with the respondent, he gave divorce to her while uttering the word 'talaq' three times. He has denied his income as alleged and has mentioned that he is dependent on other persons. It is mentioned by him that the petitioner is earning Rs. 6,000 per month by doing tuition. The respondent has given divorce in writing on 20. 8. 2004 and thereafter as per the provisions of Muslim women (Protection of Rights on Divorce)Act, 1986 (the Act in short), this application is not maintainable. 3a. On the same date, on which the reply was filed i. e. 16. 8. 2005, one application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was also filed enclosing a divorce deed dated 20. 8. 04 praying therein that on the basis of divorce, the application for maintenance be dismissed. But, vide order dated 30. 9. 2005 it was directed that, the point will be decided after taking evidence.