MD.ZAKIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the husband of the complainant, Shaheen Praveen, his wife, has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.12.2004 passed by Sri Saghir Alam, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, in Maintenance Case No. 35 of 2001, Trial No. 775 of 2004 by which while allowing the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. he has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000/ - per month to her and Rs. 500/ - per month for the minor daughter as maintenance. An additional prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 18.7.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. -III, Katihar in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 2005, whereby while dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner the Court has upheld the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 27.12.2004.

(2.) IT may be stated at the very outset that although O.P. No. 2 the wife - applicant in the court below was duly noticed and validly served with notice on two occasions yet she has chosen not to appear in the application. The brief facts germane for consideration of this application is that Shaheen Praveen, the wife of the petitioner herein, impleaded as O.P. No. 2 in this application, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. against the husband -petitioner stating inter alia that she had been married to the petitioner some four years back and soon after the marriage she was subjected to torture for dowry by her in - laws and as such she lodged one case being Barari P.S. Case No. 29 of 2000 which is pending for trial. She had been turned out of the marital house and she was staying with her parents alongwith the minor daughter borm out of the wedlock with the petitioner. She has further alleged that the conditions of her poverty ridden parents were pitiable and not sufficient to maintain her and her minor child and the petitioner including her in -laws were liable to maintain her and her minor daughter by paying maintenance. The husband is said to be a rich man possessing 25 bighas of land, a pucca house, tractor, thresher, etc., and his income and that of his father is one of one and half lac. She also stated that she requires Rs. 2,000/ - per month for herself and Rs. 1,000/ - per month for her daughter towards maintenance.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned orders the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the case he had divorced the O.P. No. 2 by "oral" talak and since he had already paid an amount of Rs. 13,551/ -on 5th August, 2002 he is not requied to pay any further amount to her. While denying the assertions of the wife regarding his property and income it was submitted that he is a poor unemployed person. What is worth noticing here is that although the petitioner herein has stated that his income is not sufficient but curiously he has not divulged what his actual income is and this very fact casts an aura of suspicion regarding the actual income of the husband and it may be safely presumed that the husband is purposely trying to hide the actual facts.