S.A. KAISER Vs. NOOR SAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure awarding a sum of Rs. 500/ - to the petitioner's wife per month and Rs, 250/ - for each of the two children per month, as maintenance.

(2.) THE case of the opp. party wife is that she was a refugee from Sind and she became acquainted with the petitioner at Baroda from where she came away with him to Calcutta and as he was a Muslim, she agreed to be converted to Islamism and she married him, thereafter according to Muslim rites and customs. Thereafter, she lived with him for long 21 years and bore him three daughters, and a son who died. The daughters were born in 1963, 1965 and 1967 respectively. The opposite party wire's case further is that the petitioner is very well to do man having a Cinema house and several race horses and a five storied building which fetches him very handsome amount, as rent. Further being a business man he has a really good income. That while the opp. party lived with the petitioner as husband and wife, he used to pay her for family expenditure a sum of Rs. 1.500/ - per month, but since 1975 the petitioner has ceased to pay any maintenance to her as a result, she having no income of her own is somehow managing to maintain her family upon the charity of her relations and friends and by selling her valuables. The case of the petitioner is that it is false to say that he has married the opp. party or that the children have begotten by him. In fact, he denied knowing any lady by the name of Noorjahan. That the opp. party is out to black mail him in order to extort money from him.

(3.) MR . Bijay Bhose, learned Advocate, appearing for the opp. party has contended that the learned Magistrate should have granted the maintenance from the date of application and not from the date of order passed by him. It appears from the records that the opp. party was trying to maintain herself by selling her ornaments and also asking friends and relations for funds to maintain the family. It also appears from the evidence that the eldest daughter Sophia was a minor at the date of the application made on her behalf by the opp. party. But she has married since and that is the reason why the learned Magistrate did not grant any maintenance to her. Though it was not on record at the time the learned Magistrate passed the order of maintenance that Sophia's marriage has since been dissolved under very painful circumstances, and she is a liability of the opposite party yet. On a consideration of all other facts, I think the order of maintenance should be made from the date of the application and not from the date when the order was passed. Accordingly, I modify the order of the learned Magistrate to that extent.