GAYASUDDIN KHAN Vs. MRS. KAHKASHAN KHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 28.07.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in C.M.C. No. 61 of 2004 awarding maintenance at the rate, of Rs. 1,500/ - per month in favour of each of the opposite parties payable by the Petitioner.

(2.) PARTIES are Muslims. Opposite party No. 1 is Petitioner's divorced wife. Opposite party No. 2 is their son. Petitioner is working as Administrative Officer with Oriental Insurance Company Limited. He has remarried. In the application for maintenance filed by the opposite parties under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (for short the 'Act'), it was averred that marriage between Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 was solemnized on 11.04.1993. At the time of marriage gold ornaments, scooter and other articles as well as cash of Rs. 20,000/ -were given as dowry to the Petitioner. Being dissatisfied, the Petitioner demanded more. The father of opposite party No. 1 paid Rs. 70,000/ - to the Petitioner to purchase a piece of land at Bhubaneswar as per his demand. Despite his undertaking to get the land registered in the name of opposite party No. 1, the Petitioner purchased the land in his own name on the plea that he had to obtain house building loan from his office. In the year 2001, the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 shifted to the newly constructed house. However, the Petitioner developed illicit relationship with another woman and demanded Rs. 2.5 lakhs from opposite party No. 1's father. As such demand could not be met, opposite party No. 1 was physically and mentally tortured by him. On 27.10.2003 the Petitioner assaulted and drove her out after snatching her ornaments. Opposite party No. 1 returned after fifteen days as opposite party No. 2 was studying in D.A.V. School, Chandrasekharpur. She found that the Petitioner had taken away documents and cash etc. from the house. She was compelled to lodge F.I.R. against her husband. Thereafter, on 07.11.2003 the Petitioner divorced opposite party No. 1. As Petitioner neglected and refused to maintain the opposite parties though he had sufficient means, the opposite parties claimed maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - and Rs. 2,000/ - respectively per month. The Petitioner filed rejoinder denying the allegations and made counter allegations that opposite party No. 1 used to misbehave him and his relations. It was also averred by the Petitioner that the opposite party No. 1 left the house on her own accord and thereafter forcibly occupied the house which he had constructed by obtaining loan from office. Inspite of such allegations and counter allegations, in view of nature of controversies raised in this revision, the incidents proceeding divorce between the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 is not material. The status and relationship between the parties, which are relevant, have not been disputed in any manner. In order to substantiate their case, the opposite parties examined four witnesses including opposite party No. 1 as P.W. 1, her father as P.W.2, mother as P.W.3 and an officer of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as P.W.4. Documents marked Exts. 1 to 10 were also relied upon by them. The Petitioner examined himself only as O.P.W.1 apart from relying upon Exts. 'A' to 'D'. Rival contentions made on behalf of the parties mainly related to interpretation of provisions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act Interestingly decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noor Saba Khatoon -v. - Mohd. Quasim: : AIR 1997 S.C. 3280 and Danial Latin and Anr. v. Union of India: : AIR 2001 S.C. 3958 were cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the opposite parties. That apart, learned Counsel for the Petitioner also sought to derive assistance from the decision of T.K. Abdulla v. Subaida and Anr.:, II (2007) CCR 101 of the Kerala High Court whereas learned Counsel for the opposite parties relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raiathi v. C. Ganesan:, 1999 (3) CCC 2 (S.C), Raj Pal and Ors. v. State of U.P.:, 2003 (2) CRJ 87 of the Allahabad High Court and Mohammed Abdul Hoi alias Faroog Pasha v. Saleha Khatoon and Ors. : 2007 Cri. LJ. 1394 of the Bombay High Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner also made a feeble attempt to find fault with the order of granting maintenance to opposite party No. 1 beyond the iddat period. However, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Danial Latifi and Anr. v. Union of India: : AIR 2001 S.C. 3958, relied upon on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the opposite parties, it has been categorically held: