JAHANARA BEGUM Vs. SIRAJUL MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.6,2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Uluberia in Misc. Case No. 89/98 under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. thereby allowing maintenance to the petitioner wife @ Rs.600/-permonthfor2and 1/2 months only.

(2.) The facts of the case is that, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C against, her husband, the opposite party (O.P.) alleging that their marriage was solemnised about four years back from the dale of filing of the application. The application was filed in the Court on 16.6.98. After marriage she went to her matrimonial home and started living with the opposite parly but, the opposite party and his mother started torture upon her demanding further dowry. The O.P. and his mother even tried to kill her hut she was saved by the elder brother of O.P., and thereafter, her brother took away her from matrimonial home to her father's house. Since then she is living in her father's house. The O.P. did not enquire about her and did not pay her any money or maintenance. The O.P. has business of 'jari' and earns Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month. The petitioner has no income of her own and she is unable to maintain herself and she claimed maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month from O.P. The O.P., contested the Misc. Case by filing written show-cause where he denied all the material averments of petitioner's application. He inter alia contended that, since marriage the petitioner did not respect him as husband and his mother. Petitioner's brother-in-law namely Nadir Molla always disturbed peaceful conjugal life of petitioner and O.P. He asked the petitioner not to entertain her brother-in-law but she did not care at all. She left his house at the ill advise of her brother ill-law and is staying in her father's house voluntarily without any reason. When all his attempts to bring her back to his house failed, he divorced the petitioner on 4.7.98 by pronouncing 'falag' and also executed a talaqnama before Notary Public. After the 'talacf, the marital relationship between them stood dissolved in all respects and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance from him. He has no employment as alleged and rather he is an agricultural labourer and hardly earns Rs. 500/- per month.

(3.) After evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate came to the decision that there was valid 'talaq' dated 4.7.98 and it was duly communicated to the petitioner in Court on 1.9.98. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. till her knowledge of divorce i.e., from 16.6.98 to 1.9.98. Learned Magistrate granted maintenance to the wife petitioner from 16.6.98 to 1 9.98 for 2 and 1/2 months only @, Rs. 600/- per month. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate the wife petitioner has moved this Court in this revisional application.