AHMADULLA SK @ AHMADULLAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur in Criminal Miscellaneous Case no. 90 of 2013 whereby and whereunder, a petition filed by the present opposite party no.2 Merina Bibi under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") for grant of monthly maintenance has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 till the disposal of the case.

(2.) At the instance of opposite party no.2, a petition under Section 125 of the Code was filed in the court below for a direction to the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance to her on the ground that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and her marriage was solemnized on 09.02.2013 under Muslim Shariyat Law but since after her marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture due to non-fulfillment of dowry by her husband (petitioner) and her in-laws. It is also stated that the petitioner has solemnized his second marriage with one Sahnaj Bibi and when she protested, she was ousted from her matrimonial house. Since then she has been living with her old widow mother. She has no independent source of income though her husband has sufficient means and earns about Rs. 30,000/- per month.

(3.) It appears from the record that after appearance, the petitioner filed his show-cause admitting his marriage with the opposite party no.2 but alleged that the opposite party no.2 never came to her matrimonial house since after her marriage though this petitioner and his family members repeatedly visited the house of the opposite party no.2 for "Vidai' but the opposite party no.2 denied to come to the house of the petitioner. This petitioner and opposite party no.2 never led their conjugal life after marriage. Hence the opposite party is not entitled to any maintenance. It is also stated in the show cause that the petitioner is a student of M.A. (Fazil) and he has no any source of his own income rather he is fully dependent upon his father. The court below after hearing the parties and considering the pleadings held that the present opposite party no.2 had sufficient reason not to stay with the present petitioner and the present petitioner is duty bound to maintain his wife and directed to pay as indicated above.