TANQEER USMANI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the private opposite parties in spite of repeated calls. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7-4-2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dumka, in Cr. Misc. Case No. 69 of 1995, whereby, in a proceeding under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, the petitioner was directed to make the payment of Dein Mehar of 51 Bhar Silver corresponding to Rs. 4590/-, return of gifted articles worth Rs. 22,125/-. Salami Rs. 2600/- and expenses Rs. 6,000/- till the Iddat period to the opposite party No. 2, who is the divorced wife of the petitioner, and also to make the payment of Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party No. 3, who is the minor daughter of the petitioner, living with her mother for her maintenance till she attains majority.

(2.) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act was filed by the opposite party No. 2 herein, claiming he self to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, stating that she was divorced by her husband, but her dues as aforementioned were not returned back. The impugned order also shows that the marriage between the parties and the birth of the daughter out of their wedlock are the admitted facts in this case. It further appears from the order passed by the Court below that in the proceeding, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 who was the petitioner in the Court below and four witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner herein, but the petitioner did not examine himself as witness in spite of sufficient opportunity given to him. Some documents were also produced and proved by the parties which have been taken into consideration by the Court below.

(3.) On appraisal of the evidence brought on record, both oral and documentary, the Court below has come to the conclusion that though the opposite party No. 2 wife was divorced by the petitioner, but her legal dues such as Dein Mehar, the articles gifted to her, salami which was given to her, were not paid back to her. The Court below also came to the conclusion that the opposite Party No. 3, who is the minor daughter of the petitioner, was also entitled to get the maintenance from her father.