MD SAZID HAZARIKA Vs. MUSSTT ALAM ARA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order, dated 14-12-01, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati, in Misc. Case No. 25/97, under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, whereby the learned Court below directed the second party-revision petitioner to pay to the first party-opposite parry a sum of Rs. 50,000 as Mahr (Dower) and Rs. 5.000/- as maintenance for the period of Iddat

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts giving rise to the present revision may, in brief, be stated as follows : i) The first party-opposite parry instituted Misc. Case No. 25/97 aforementioned claiming payment of dower amount to the tune of Rs. 50.000/- and maintenance for the period of Iddat, her case being, briefly stated, thus : The parties to the proceeding were legally wedded husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized, on 8-7-91, according to Muslim Personal Law. The Mahr (dower) fixed for the marriage was Rs. 50.001/-. After the marriage, the first party lived at the house of the second party as his wife, but soon after the marriage, the second party raised demands for cash money and other valuables and since the first parry was unable to meet the demands so raised, she was put to torture both physically as well as mentally. The second party on 9-2-92, left the first parry in front of her parents' house. As no maintenance was provided to the first parry by her husband, she instituted a proceeding before the Principal Judge, Family Court, for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. As the second party, on 24-7-97, produced, in the said maintenance proceeding, a talaqnama (i.e. document of dissolution of marriage) indicating that his marriage with the first party stood dissolved, order, dated 24-9-92, was passed in the said maintenance proceeding, whereby first parry's prayer for maintenance was rejected on the ground that she had been divorced by her husband. The first party, therefore, Instituted the present proceeding seeking payment of Mahr (i.e. dower) of Rs. 50,001) and also prayed for maintenance for the period of Iddat amounting to a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. This proceeding too was contested by the second party, the case of the second party being that the Mahr was of an amount of Rs. 8.001/- and not Rs. 50,001/-. ii) In course of time, both the parties adduced evidence, each of the parties having examined four witnesses. Upon considering the materials on record and hearing the parties, the learned Court below passed the impugned order, dated 14-12-01, aforementioned. Aggrieved by this order the second party has, now, approached this Court with the present revision.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the second party-petitioner, and Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel for the first party-opposite party.