IBRAHIM Vs. MST. ANJUMAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397/401 of the Code Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 16.9.2003 passed by Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) whereby the Trial Court allowed the application field by respondents under Sec. 125 of the Code against the petitioner and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600.00 per month in favour of respondent No. 1 and Rs. 500.00 in favour of Respondent No. 2 from the date of application i.e. 10.10.2002. Aggrieved by order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and order impugned as also the record of the Trial Court.

(3.) Before the Trial Court, the petitioner failed to appear and contest the case. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has already divorced (Talak) respondent No. 1 by a notice dated I.2.1999 (Annexure 1) in presence of two witnesses and after having divorced, respondent No. 1 contracted second marriage (Nikah) with one Sabir Ali of Jodhpur on 3.8.1999, therefore, respondent No. 1 at best could be entitled for maintenance for the Iddat period from 1.2.1999 and at any rate, respondent No. 1 is not entitled for maintenance after having contracted the second marriage with Sabir Ali of Jodhpur vide Annexure 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a marriage form Annexure-5, which appears to have been signed by Shehar Qazi, wherein it has been stated that Nikah Ceremony has taken place between respondent No. 1 Anjuman and Sabir Ali. This document was not before the Trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was under wrong impression that since respondent No. 1 has contracted second marriage, the application for maintenance filed by her would not be maintainable and on ill-advice of one Shambhuial Yadav, Advocate of Bikaner, the petitioner failed to appear and contest the case before the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondents denied the contract of second marriage. Be that as it may, the matter needs a proper adjudication on this material point and, therefore, I consider it just and proper to remand the matter to the Trial Court to decide the point as to whether the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 has been dissolved by Talaknama vide Annexure-1 and if so, what is its effect.