SAHEDA KHATOON Vs. GHOLAM SARWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is directed against the order dated 21/03/2001 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the Misc. Case filed by the petitioner-wife praying for maintenance against the O.P.-husband. It may be mentioned here that the O.P. has not entered his appearance in spite of repeated calls even though he has received the notice of this Revisional Application in due time (vide order sheet dated 12th April, 2002).

(2.) The petitioner-wife filed this Misc. Case No. 136/99 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. praying for an award of maintenance in her favour against her husband, the O.P. Her case was that she was married by the O.P. on 14th Oct. 1993 according to the Muslim rites and they lived as husband and wife for about two years after the marriage was consummated and during this period the petitioner conceived. But the husband started torturing her both physically and mentally. One day, when she was in advanced stage of her pregnancy, the O.P. mercilessly assaulted her and kicked her on her abdomen. As a result she had to be admitted into a Nursing Home and operated upon and she gave birth to a dead child. Thereafter the O.P. drove her out from his house when she became compelled to take refuge in her father's house. Since thereafter a good number of attempts were made through village panchayat to effect a settlement between them so that the husband might take her back but it failed due to the adamant attitude of the husband and in this way the petitioner has been compelled to live at the mercy of her parents and she has been finding it difficult to have her both ends met. Hence she has preferred the present petition for maintenance before the Court below, as she has no independent source of income, whereas her husband is a businessman and earns about Rs. 200/- per day from such business.

(3.) The petition was contested by the O.P.-husband by filing a written objection where he denied the material allegations while admitting that the petitioner was his married wife. His further case was that he divorced the petitioner by giving Talak to her on her demand in his presence and in the presence of several witnesses of the local panchayat. As the petitioner refused to stay with him and her father told him to give Talak to her daughter, he divorced her by giving three Talaks. The petitioner thus being a divorced wife will not be entitled to get maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. as claimed and the petition is not maintainable under the law.