SHABNAM BANO Vs. MOHD. RAFIQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner wife has challenged the order dated 22 -1 -2004, passed by the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur, whereby the learned Court has partly accepted the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) IN a nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that on 31 -10 -1999, the petitioner married Mohd. Rafiq, the respondent No. 1, in accordance with Muslim rites and customs in Jaipur. During their wedlock a son, namely Sahil Khan, the respondent No. 2, was born. Sahil Khan is living with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 and his family members started torturing her for dowry demands. Since, she comes from a poor family, her family could not fulfill the illegal demand of respondent No. 1 and his family members. Ultimately, on 10 -10 -2001, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Subsequently, on 28 -2 -2002, the petitioner lodged a FIR in Woman Police Station against the respondent No. 1 and his family members. However, since 10 -10 -2001, she has been residing with her parents, along with her child. Her father happens to be a rickshaw -puller, who has to support and feed eight other family members. Therefore, she is not in a position to maintain either herself or her child. Since without any justifiable reason, the respondent No. 1 has refused to maintain her and the child, therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Court.

(3.) IN rejoinder, the petitioner denied the statements made by respondent No. 1. In order to support her case, the petitioner examined herself and her father and exhibited seventeen documents. In support of his case, the respondent No. 1 examined himself. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Court concluded that the respondent No. 1 could not prove that he had divorced the petitioner through a registered letter dated 15 -11 -2001. However, the learned Court held that since the respondent No. 1 had stated in his testimony on 15 -12 -2003 that he has divorced the petitioner, therefore, the divorce would be taken to have occurred on 15 -12 -2003 itself. Thus, the respondent No. 1 was liable to pay the maintenance from the date of filing the application, i.e. 6 -5 -2002 till 15 -12 -2003. As well as to pay the maintenance during the period of 'Iddat' of three months thereafter. The learned Court further held that the respondent No. 1 is liable to pay maintenance Rs. 500/ - per month to respondent No. 2 from 6 -5 -2002 till the respondent No. 2 reaches the age of maturity. Since, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, she has filed present petition before this Court.