SAGIR Vs. MADINA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short &aposthe Code&apos). It is directed against the order dated 22.5.1998 passed in Maintenance Case No. 43 (M) of 1997 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna under section 125 of the Code by which the present petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 300/ - per month to opposite party no. 1 and also a sum of Rs. 200/ - per month each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 with effect from the date of the said order.

(2.) THE case of opposite party no.1, Madina Khatoon, was that she is legally married wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed about 30 years ago. The petitioner is employed as a Peon in the Weights and Measure Department posted in Patna and is getting a salary of Rs. 3000/ - per month. After the marriage the petitioner and opposite party no. 1 lived as husband and wife and got two daughters and three sons out of this wedlock. Opposite party no. 1 had brought this Maintenance Case on the ground that the petitioner refused to maintain her. Since she has got no means to maintain herself and her family she prayed for maintenance in the maintenance case. The Principal Judge, Family Court, after hearing the parties allowed the maintenance in the manner indicated above. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.

(3.) THE petitioner has contended that the judgment passed by the learned court below is iilegal and bad in law. Only interested witnesses have been examined on behalf of opposite party no. 1 who have failed to prove her marriage with the present petitioner. No evidence about this marriage has been adduced. Opposite party no. 1 has not been able to state the date, month or even the year of her marriage with the present petitioner. No document to show this marriage has been produced nor the amount of Dain Mehar has been stated Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have not examined themselves in the court. It is absurd to believe that a wife who is living wth her husband since about 30 to 35 years does not know the name of her husband or the name of her father -in -law as according to Muslim Law even at the time of Nikah the name of the husband is declared to the bride. The petitioner 'sname is Md. Sagir and he has got no alias name. He is never known as Md. Sagiruddin as will appear from his service record since he is in Government service. The name of his father is Samsul Haque and not Sahimuddin. The learned court below has completely ignored the evidence on record and has come to wrong conclusion. On these grounds amongst others it has been contended that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.