KULSUMA Vs. MOHAMMAD LATIF DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in the instant petition, has questioned the order dated 14th of October, 2015, passed by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, passed in a criminal revision directed against the order of learned Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate (Under 13th Finance Commission), Srinagar, (hereinafter to be referred as the learned trial Magistrate), on 3rd of September, 2014, passed in an application titled "Mst. Kulsuma Akhter & Anr. vs. Mohammad Latief Dar in file No. 06/A".

(2.) In terms of the order dated 3rd of September, 2014, passed by the learned trial Magistrate, the application for maintenance has been finally disposed of and the respondent has been directed to pay maintenance allowance to the non-applicant Nos. 1(petitioner herein) and 2 @ Rs. 3500/- per month. The non-applicant No.2 is admitted to be the daughter of the petitioner, whereas the non-applicant No.1 (petitioner herein) is ruled to be the wife of the respondent, however, the said status was disputed by the respondent herein, on the ground, that the non-applicant No.1 (petitioner herein) has been already divorced. The learned trial Magistrate, on consideration of the matter and after scanning the evidence on record, has granted the maintenance, both in favour of the daughter and the wife, ignoring the objections raised by the respondent herein with reference to the entitlement of the maintenance to non-applicant No.1 (wife/ petitioner herein), on the ground, of her having been divorced.

(3.) The matter became the subject matter of a criminal revision before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar and, on proper consideration and examination of the issues raised with reference to the evidence on record, the revisional Court, in terms of the judgment passed on 14th of October, 2015, reversed the order of the learned trial Magistrate to the extent of grant of maintenance to the respondent herein (wife). The finding recorded by the learned trial Court, to the effect that no divorce has taken place, was found as without having any basis and perverse. The revisional Court has discussed the evidence in detail and has also referred to the document which has been proved by the respondent. It would be advantageous to take note of the relevant portion of the judgment dated 14th of October, 2015, passed by the revisional Court, which reads as under: