AMNA KHATOON Vs. MOHAMMAD KASHIM ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under S. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984,is by the plaintiff (Amna Khatoon) against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 40 of 1994, dismissing her suit for dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 ('the Act') for short.

(2.) The essential facts giving rise to this appeal are thus :It is admitted fact that the plaintiff (Amna Khatoon) and the defendant (Md. Kashim Ansari) were married on 6-3-1993 according to the Mahomedan rites at village Asanbari, P.S. Govindpur, within district Dhanbad, at the residence of the plaintiff. The defendent is the resident of village Samhari, P.S. Barwadda, within district Dhanbad. It emerges from the record that the parents of the plaintiff are blind and she has two married sisters and no brother. Further, both the parties have admitted in their evidence that no child has been born to them out of the wed-lock. At the time of the marriage, the plaintiff was a teacher in Asanbani Middle School, while the defendant was a driver in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) at Dhanbad.

(3.) The plaintiff brought the suit for dissolution of the marriage with the allegations, inter alia, that at the time of the marriage, the defendant concealed the fact that already he had two wives, who were living with him at village Samhari; that it was mutually agreed at the time of the marriage that the defendant would live with the plaintiff at her parental home, but he broke the promise and occasionally lived with the plaintiff, while the plaintiff never visited the village home of the defendant/husband; that the defendant, whenever he came to the house of the plaintiff, ill-treated and habitually assaulted her and made her life miserable by cruelty of conduct and he often pressurised her to convey the properties to him, which have been gifted to her by her father, but she did not oblige him. Further, she alleged that in the month of March, 1994, one night the defendant took her to a lonely place far-off village Asanbani, misbehaved abused and threatened her, and whenever the defendant visited the house of the plaintiff, he used to take away her movables forcibly and wherever she objected, he assaulted and threatened her. She further alleged that the defendent has association with women of evil repute and lives an infamous life. Hence, she prayed for dissolution of the marriage between the parties.The defendant/husband resisted the suit by filing the written statement as well as supplementary written statement. His main defence is the denial that he had suppressed any fact from the plaintiff or her father at the time of the marriage or that there was an agreement between the parties that he would live with the plaintiff at her parental home. On the other hand, he has asserted that there was an understanding that after the marriage the plaintiff would live with him at his home (Samhari) and would occasionally visit her parental home. He pleaded his ignorance that Daud Mian, his father-in-law, had conveyed his property to the plaintiff. He has asserted that occasionally he used to visit the parental home of the plaintiff, while most of the time,the plaintiff lived with him in his house at Samhari. He has denied that he had treated the plaintiff with cruelty or ever harrased her. Further, he has denied the allegation that he used to pressurise the plaintiff to transfer any landed property in his favour. He has further denied that he ever removed her movables against her wishes. He has made counter allegation that she is a lady of bad character and has extramarital relationship with infamous persons, which is against religion and at the behest of Pahlan Main and Taiyab Ansari, her paramours, she has filed the present suit with false allegation.On the above grounds, the defendant/husband prayed that the matrimonial suit be dismissed.