MD. IRFANULLAH Vs. SHAHLA JAWAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER /husband has challenged order dated 03.06.2009 passed by Principal Judge, Samastipur in Maintenance Case No. 9/2007 whereby and whereunder the learned lower court had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5000/ - per month in lieu of maintenance which was to be effective from the date of application as well as Rs. 5000/ -, lump sum as litigation cost.

(2.) WIFE /OP disclosing the fact that her marriage was solemnized on 24.12.2005 with the petitioner/OP in terms of Mahomedan Law as both the parties belong to the aforesaid sect, further disclosed her woe which she faced at her Sasural and after being rescued by her Naiharwala, she has taken shelter at her Naiher. Because of the fact that her husband failed to take care of and maintain her, hence being compelled to, filed a petition for maintenance whereunder apart from details of incidents also disclosed the source of means as well as monthly income being enjoyed by her husband. Petitioner/husband appeared and filed his show -cause wherein he had accepted the marriage with Shahla Jawaid on 24.12.2005 but explained that the marriage was solemnized under process of deception. To elaborate such plea, it has been submitted that Shahla Jawaid was already married to Tajuddin in terms of Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act and then thereafter, she had gone to the place of Tajuddin where she enjoyed her status that of wife of Tajuddin. During her stay, Nikaah was also performed in between them in accordance of Mahomedan Law and on account thereof, their marriage subsequently is recognized in accordance with Mahomedan Law. After spending some time at her Sasural, she came back at her Maika and since thereafter, her family members did not allow her to join with her husband Tajuddin. Consequent thereupon, in terms of Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, Matrimonial Suit No. 56/2000 was filed by Tajuddin whereunder Shahla Jawaid appeared. It has also been disclosed that another criminal case also happens to be amongst them.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the respective parties, it is further evident that the aforesaid ex parte decree passed in Suit No. 372/06 has already been recalled, however, the suit, on account thereof, is still surviving. From the L.C. record, it is also evident that the documents on behalf of respective parties have been filed along with oral evidence and after scrutinizing the same, the learned lower court had passed the order impugned, the subject matter of instant petition.