SK SAHABUDDIN Vs. NAZIMA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows This revisional application has been preferred under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. against the judgment dated 30/11/2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour in Case No. M-155 of 2006.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that the opposite party filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the learned Magistrate and in the said application she stated that she was married with the petitioner long before and was staying in the matrimonial house with the petitioner as his wife and out of the said wedlock she gave birth to three sons. Ultimately, she was driven out from the said matrimonial house. Before filing of the present case, the petitioner field an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights) and Divorce Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in the said proceeding direction was given upon the petitioner to pay Denmohar and maintenance for the Iddat period and for provisions of future maintenance. Out of the said amount, the wife/petitioner constructed a house and she had now no money with her. Under such circumstances, the wife filed the petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. praying for maintenance against the husband. It was claimed therein that the husband is earning a monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/- being an employee of Haldia Port Trust. The petitioner prayed for maintenance Rs.@ 3000/- per month.

(3.) The husband contested the said case by filing show-cause wherein he denied the allegations of the wife on the material points. According to the husband, he earns about Rs. 7,000/- per month. Moreover, it has been claimed by the husband that the wife has been earning from the interest of the amount she received from the husband in the earlier proceeding. As such, the petitioner/husband claimed that the maintenance application was not at all maintainable. But, the learned Magistrate, by his impugned order was pleased to allow the maintenance application and directed the husband to pay Rs. 1000/- per month in favour of the wife. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned Magistrate the husband has filed this revisional application. According to the petitioner, the wife was not at all entitled to get any further maintenance from him since in an earlier proceeding, filed under Section 3 of the said Act, she has already received the maintenance in accordance with law. The husband has claimed that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate this while awarding further maintenance in favour of the wife. As such, by filing this revisional application, the husband has prayed for setting aside the said judgment.