ATAR RAHMAN Vs. SAHAJUN BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party herein made an application, under section 3 (2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, Assam, seeking an order directing the present-petitioner to pay Mahar of a sum off L 25,101 /- (rupees twenty-five thousand one hundred and one) only, and another sum of L 3,000/- (rupees three thousand) only, for maintenance during the period of Iddat. The said application gave rise to M.R. Case No. 61/2002, the opposite party s case being, in brief, thus: Her marriage was solemnized with the present petitioner according to the Muslim Law and that the Mahar, settled for the marriage, was a sum of L 25,101 /-. Following her marriage, she stayed at the house of the present petitioner. During the first three months of her stay at the house of the present petitioner after her marriage, the brothers and sisters of the present petitioner used to torture her both mentally and physically by raising demand of money and one day an attempt was made even to set her on fire. On receiving information that the petitioner herein tortured and even tried to kill the opposite party by setting her on fire, her brother filed a criminal case at Khetri Police Station. However, at the intervention of wellwishers, the matter was amicably settled between the present petitioner and the opposite party herein and the present petitioner kept her (i.e., the opposite party herein) at a rented house. But, one day, the petitioner, under the influence of liquor, beat her mercilessly and drove her out of the house. Having no alternative, she (i.e., the opposite party herein) came back to her brother s house and started living there. One 2.4.2002, while the opposite party herein was returning to her matrimonial house with her brother, they happened to meet the present petitioner in front of his house and an altercation took place between the present petitioner and the brother of the opposite party herein, the present petitioner assaulted her brother and, when she went to rescue her brother, the present petitioner, feeling aggrieved, divorced her by pronouncing talaq thrice.

(2.) The present petitioner resisted the application, whereby the opposite party had sought for direction to be given to the present petitioner to pay to her the said sum of Mahar and also maintenance for the period of Iddat. While admitting that the opposite party herein was his legally wedded wife and that he had to shift to a rented house with the opposite party herein, the present petitioner contended, in his written statement, that while living at the rented house, the opposite party herein was, one day, detected stealing vegetables at the homestead of the landlord and, on such detection being made, she left the said rented house, where she had been living with the present petitioner. It was also contended, in the written statement that the petitioner thereafter went on several occasions, to bring her back, but the opposite party did not agree to come back. The petitioner also claims, in his written statement, that Mahar, which had been fixed at the time of marriage, was a sum of L 5,101 /- and not L 25,101 /-. In his written statement, the petitioner, nowhere, denied that he had not dissolved his marriage with the opposite party by pronouncing talaq.

(3.) It is in the circumstances, as indicated above, the evidence, adduced by the party, was recorded. As there was no denial by the present petitioner, in the written statement, of the allegations made by his wife, that she has been divorced by pronouncing talaq and, upon also finding from the evidence, adduced by the parties concerned, that the Mahar amount was L 25,101/- and not L 5,101/-, as contended by the present petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order, on 7. 10.2002, directing the present petitioner to pay to the opposite party herein a sum L 25,101/- as Mahar and, L 3,000/- as maintenance for the period of Iddat. By order, dated 7.10.2002, aforementioned, the petitioner was further directed to pay another sum of L 2,000/- as the costs of the proceeding.