MD. ABDUL SUKUR Vs. RUSNA BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Majumder, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) By means of this petition, under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 1/8/2018 delivered in Crl. Misc.(125)-130 of 2017 on a solitary ground that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on 7/4/2017 or any date thereafter as per Muslim personal law. Even the petitioner has asserted that, that is the reason why no Kabinnama was executed. The Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura did not accept the plea of the petitioner by returning the finding as follows :

(3.) The other aspects are, to be candid, not under challenge inasmuch as, the respondent who was the petitioner in the proceeding under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. was living separately and she has proved that she had no means to maintain herself whereas the petitioner herein (the Opposite Party in the proceeding below) was neglecting to maintain her. Having observed thus, by the judgment dtd. 1/8/2018, the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5000.00 per month.