ISRAFIL MIAN Vs. MOSTT. BIBI TAIBUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order passed under Sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure granting maintenance to the wife and children of the petitioner, Israfil Mian. The petitioner's wife, Bibi Taibunnisa, filed an application before the Magistrate alleging that she was the legally married wife of the petitioner and had been living along with her two children, a son and a daughter, but the petitioner had some illicit relations with another woman and wanted to marry her and on account of that she was turned out of the house along with her two children and that the petitioner refused and neglected to maintain her. She, therefore, claimed maintenance for herself as well as her two children, to the extent of Rs. 100/ - for herself and Rs. 150/ - for the children, alleging that the petitioner was a man of means having landed properties and getting a monthly income of Rs. 300/ - by working in a dockyard at Calcutta.

(2.) The petitioner, who was the opposite party before the Magistrate, admitted that Taibunnisa was his wife and the children were his but alleged that his wife had illicit connection with one Md. Hasnain and had even become pregnant by him, on which he had divorced her. He further said that he had also filed an informatory petition before the Sub -divisional Magistrate in which he had reiterated the factum of divorce of his wife.

(3.) The learned Magistrate found the story of divorce unsubstantiated by the evidence on record. He found that the contents of the informatory petition had not been conveyed to the wife and the divorce could not be said to have been effected. He found that both the lady and the two children had been neglected by the petitioner and that there was a refusal to maintain them. Accordingly, he allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 40/ - per month to the wife and Rs. 30/ - each per month to the two children, so long as the lady did not remarry and so long as the daughter was not married and the son had not become major. The learned Magistrate directed the payment of this maintenance from one year before the date of the order.