LAWS(PAT)-2006-4-35

RAHIMA KHATOON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 10, 2006
RAHIMA KHATOON Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 2 to 7 and. the learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner filed a complaint case against her husband, opposite party No. 2, and his family members. The complaint alleged that she was married to opposite party No. 2 on 23.6.2000. Following harassment for the purpose of dowry, they were divorced. A panchayati followed thereafter when the petitioner on 20.8.2000 re-married apposite party No. 2 on payment on payment Den Mohar as specified in the complaint and an agreement was arrived at between the husband and the wife in presence of the 'pan-dies' that he would not make any demands for dowry. The complaint alleges that the husband then treated the petitioner right for one 3-'ear when a child was also born. Then followed demands for a motorcycle and Rs. 5000/-. The petitioner arranged for her father to pay a sum of Rs. 4200/- to her husband and regretted the inability to give him a motorcycle. The petitioner's husband then assaulted her with his legs and fists and abused her and her daughter and finally pushed them out of the matrimonial home on 20.6.2002. She expressed that she felt like committing suicide because of the treatment meted out to her.

(3.) The court below then proceeded to enquire into the matter and arrived at its satisfaction that no offence under Section 498A of the Penal Code was made out because the validity of the re-marriage of the complainant appeared to be questionable in Mahommedan law. Cognizance was thus taken only under Section 323 of the Penal Code. The petitioner, aggrieved with the same, preferred Cr. Rev. No. 35/2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj. The Revisional court at this stage dwelved on the provisions of Mahommedan Law for a valid remarriage and arrived at its conclusion that because the remarriage of the petitioner to opposite party No. 2 was solemnised before completion of the Iddat period, and that the procedure for remarriage in Mahommaden Law had not been complied with, the court below rightly found that the marriage was not legal and therefore rightly did not take cognizance under Section 498A of the Penal Code.