LAWS(JHAR)-2015-1-150

SHAMSHUDDIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

Decided On January 27, 2015
SHAMSHUDDIN Appellant
V/S
State Of Jharkhand And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been directed against the order dated 30.07.2011 passed in Maintenance Case No. 85 of 2009 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 3000/- per month to O.P. No.2 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the minor son, O.P. No. 3- Md. Anjar.

(2.) Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the award of maintenance to O.P. No.2 by the trial court is against the provisions as the O.P. No.2 was given divorce and she can claim the maintenance under the provision of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. That the trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that petitioner has given 'Talak' to O.P. No.2 by way of Khula; that under the Mohammadan Law 'Talak' by a way of Khula is given when a Muslim married lady asks for it forfeiting her rights to claim maintenance for Iddat period and Dainmehar, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. Secondly it has been urged that the court below erred in not considering the fact that O.P. No.3 was a major son on the date of filing of the application and this plea has been taken by the petitioner in the court below and Voter Identity Card was produced to show that he was aged about18 years at that point of time; On the above facts it is contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law or on facts.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the dispute raised by the petitioner was considered by the trail court as it is evident from the discussion of the evidence and the materials on record. The court held that there was no valid Talak; that O.P. No.2 was not residing with the petitioner on the day Talak was given as she had been driven out of the matrimonial home; that the court below has recorded a finding that the petitioner could not produce any document in the court below to show that O.P. No.3 was a major; that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law.