HASINA KHATOON Vs. ASZAD ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dtd. 12/12/2018, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari in Maintenance Case No. 66 of 2012, whereby learned Principal Judge has directed the opposite party/Aszad Ansari to pay Rs.1,500.00 per month to the petitioner no.1, who is wife of the opposite party, towards her maintenance since the date of the order i.e. 12/12/2018 and to pay Rs.5,000.00 to her towards the litigation cost. However, learned Family Court has not passed any order in regard to maintenance to the petitioner no.2, who is daughter of the petitioner no.1 and opposite party, though she was also petitioner no.2 before the Family Court.

(2.) As per the maintenance petition filed by the petitioners before the Family Court, the petitioner no.1 Hasina Khatoon was married with opposite party, Aszad Ansari in the year 2007 as per Islamic Rites and Customs. After the marriage, she joined the matrimonial home of her husband and out of the wedlock, petitioner no.2 Jamuna was born who was 4 years old at the time of maintenance petition before the Family Court. As per further averment made in the maintenance petition, after the marriage, demand of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000.00 started on the part of the opposite party/husband and on account of non- fulfillment of the same, she was subjected to cruelty and was finally ousted from the matrimonial home. Hence, a criminal case under Sec. 498A IPC was lodged in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. As per further averment, opposite party/husband runs a boutique shop in Bombay earning Rs.30,000.00 per month and he has also four bighas of agricultural land earning annual income in lacs. As per further statement of the petitioner/wife, the opposite party has also a shop at his home. The petitioners had sought Rs.20,000.00 per month towards their maintenance.

(3.) On notice, the opposite party appeared before the Family Court and filed his show cause contesting the maintenance petition of his wife and child. He claimed that the allegation made in the petition was false and concocted, and hence the maintenance petition was liable to be dismissed. He denied that there was any demand of dowry and torturing therefor. However, he has admitted his marriage with the petitioner No. 1 and it was also admitted that after the marriage, she joined his matrimonial home. But it was claimed that she was not living with him wholeheartedly. She always used to threaten him to leave the matrimonial home. On account of such conduct of the petitioner/wife, the opposite party/husband and his family members were unhappy with her. He further claimed that without his permission, his wife used to leave the matrimonial home to go her maike and she used to come back at the matrimonial home at her sweet-will and when he went to Bombay for work, she went to her maike along with the daughter and when the family members of the opposite party went to her maike to take her back to the matrimonial home, she used to flatly refuse to come back to the matrimonial home. When he came back at home on 4/2/2012 from Bombay, he went to maike of his wife to take her and his daughter to the matrimonial home, but he was mistreated by her mother and it was stated that his wife would not live with him, and it was informed that the petitioner/wife was living with one Md. Amanullah and she would live her rest life with him. For personal talk with the petitioner/wife, he went to the house of aforesaid Amanullah, but she also misbehaved with him and refused to join him at his matrimonial home and stated to him that no longer she recognized him as her husband, nor did she want to go back to his house. The information for such conduct was given to the Court of S.D.O., Sikrahna. The petitioner/wife also divorced him in the presence of the witnesses who had accompanied him and, thereafter, the amount of Dain-mehar was paid to her. Hence, the matrimonial relationship came to end between the petitioner and the opposite party. He has filed divorce petition bearing No. 258 of 2012 in Court. Hence, he has claimed that petitioner is not entitled to get any maintenance.