GYASUDDIN KHAN Vs. KAHKASHAN KHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application, against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, the petitioner (husband), who was the opposite party in C.R.P. No.36/2011(Crl. Misc. Case No.141/2009) has assailed the order dated 5.8.2011 passed by the learned Judge enhancing the maintenance of opposite party no.1-wife and opposite party no.2-child from Rs.1500/- to Rs.3000/- each per month.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. Both parties belong to Muslim community. Opposite party no.-1 is the petitioner's divorced wife. Opposite party no.2 is their son. The petitioner is working as a Administrative Officer with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. After divorcing opposite party no.1 he has remarried. It is not disputed that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no.1 took place on 11.4.1993. At the time of marriage some dowry articles were given. Later on the petitioner demanded more. There are tussle between the parties. It is further alleged that the petitioner developed illicit relationship with another woman and demanded Rs.2.5 lakhs from opposite party no.1's father. Thereafter the petitioner tortured opposite party no.1 both physically and mentally. On 27.10.2003 the petitioner drove opposite party no.1 out. At that time opposite party no.2 was studying in D.A.V. School,Chandrasekharpur. Thereafter the opposite parties filed an application under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity) which was registered as C.M.C. No.61/2004. After hearing both the parties, the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the present opposite parties @ Rs.1500/- each per month.

(3.) The petitioner carried the matter to this Court. The matter came up for disposal before a Single Judge in Crl. Revision No.751/2006. As per judgment dated 3.2.2009 the Crl. Revision was dismissed and the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar was upheld.