ABDUL MANNAN Vs. SAIRA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner husband has filed the present application against the order dated 9.8.1995, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur, in Trial No. 4263 of 1995, by which he was allowed the application filed by with opposite party No. 1, Saira Khatoon and ordered for payment of maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month for her and Rs. 200/- each for two children, namely, Mohina Khatoon (opposite party No. 2) and Noor Alam (opposite party No. 3).

(2.) The opposite party No. 1 filed a petition stating therein that the petitioner was earlier married with the daughter of one Md. Wasi of village Katai. Later on, he married with opposite party No. 1 on 18.12.1975 and Rs. 3,000/- was fixed as the dower debt. After marriage, three children were born out of their wed-lock, out of whom one is also married. They were living peacefully for some time and, thereafter, the husband-petitioner started misbehaving with her and stopped giving food to her and her children and in the month of January, 1991, the husband-petitioner forcibly drove her out of his house and since then she is living with her parents along with her children. She is unable to maintain herself and her children. Her father approached the husband-petitioner several times for keeping them but he had not agreed. The husband-petitioner has an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month, but even then he is not maintaining her and her children. Hence, the application for maintenance.

(3.) The husband-petitioner appeared and filed a show-cause. He admitted his marriage with opposite party No. 1 on 18.12.1975 for a deferred dower of Rs. 785/-. Wife opposite party No. 1 was lady of questionable character and was indulging in a loose life and as there was no chance of any improvement so with her consent, he on 2.10.1976 divorced her and paid the deferred dower of Rs. 785/- and also paid the maintenance during that period, in regard to which she executed receipt and her mother also executed in Ekrarnama in respect of divorce and since 2.10.1976, she is not his wife, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code').