SK SAFIQUE Vs. PAPIA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dated 23.2.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum thereby dismissing the revisional application and affirming the order dated 12/7/1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dubrajpur, Birbhum in Misc. Case No. 146 of 1997 under Section 125, Cr.P.C.

(2.) It appears that the present opposite party/wife filed an application before the learned Magistrate praying for maintenance for herself. The learned Judicial Magistrate after recording evidence and considering the facts and circumstances of the case directed the present petitioner/husband to pay an amount of Rs. 800/- p.m. from the date of filing of the case. It appears that the present petitioner being the husband contested the proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. by filing written objection denying all material allegations levelled against him. In the written statement it was stated by him that he had already divorced the opposite party/wife on 6.6.1998 and since she is a divorced Muslim woman, she is not entitled to get any maintenance under the provision of Section 125, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence and considering the facts and circumstances directed the present petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 800/- p.m. towards maintenance of the opposite party /wife from the date of filing of the case. Challenging the said order of maintenance the petitioner preferred a revisional application before the learned Sessions Judge which was also dismissed by the learned Judge by his order dated 23.2.2000. Against such order of dismissal the petitioner came up before this Court in revision.

(3.) Mr. Tapash Kr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the present opposite party /wife is not entitled to get any maintenance in her favour since she is divorced Muslim woman. Mr. Ghosh further contended that the Talaknama marked as Ext. A in the proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C was a certified copy of the original document and the same was not considered by the learned Magistrate and no evidentiary value was given to this particular document. Therefore, both the Courts below according to Mr. Ghosh committed wrong in allowing maintenance of Rs. 800/- p.m.