SK MD SAHIDULLAH Vs. HUSNA BANU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application is directed against an order dated 25.3.99 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Katwa in Criminal Motion No. 2/99 thereby setting aside the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katwa in Misc. Case No. 73 of 1995 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Present opposite party No. l/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Ld. Magistrate claiming maintenance for herself and her minor child. The case of the opposite party/wife in her application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that she was married to the present petitioner/husband according to Muslim rites. At the time of marriage Denmohor was fixed at Rs. 30,000/-. After marriage O.P. No. 1/wife was subjected to torture and ill-treatment by her husband and other in-laws as she could not bring more money and articles from her father. On 28.2.91 the husband/petitioner assaulted the o.p./wife and drove her out from matrimonial home after taking, away all her ornaments and other articles which were given to her by he father at the time of her marriage. It was further stated that the petitioner/husband married again. The o.p./wife had no independent income and as such she claimed Rs. 1500/- per month for herself and Rs. 1000/- for her child as maintenance.

(3.) The present petitioner being the husband appeared and contested the said proceeding by filing written objection. Specific case of the husband/petitioner, as it appears from his written objection, is that he tried his best to take back the wife/o.p. by various means. He has given the specific dates on which he went to his father-in-law's house to get the matter reconciled. He has even given the names of the respectable persons of the village who accompanied the petitioner/husband to his father-in-law's house for that purpose. But the wife/o.p. did not return from her father's house. When all endeavors on the part of the husband/petitioner failed, he divorced his wife. It was the further contention of the petitioner/husband that being a divorced woman the o.p./wife is not entitled to get any maintenance.