KHABIRUDDIN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, against the judgment dated 01.08.2014, passed by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Pakur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.45 of 2011.

(2.) The facts of the case is that the petitioner herein was married with opposite party no.2 on 08.01.2009 as per muslim customs and rites. After a lapse of 2 months of marriage, the 1st wife of the petitioner started to torture the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner alongwith his 1st wife created pressure on opposite party no.2 to bring Rs.50,000/- from her father's house as dowry. The petitioner alongwith his 1st wife also assaulted the opposite party no.2 during her pregnancy and they have also tried to administer poison to her. However, the opposite party no.2 has given birth to a male child. Finally on 30.11.2011 the petitioner alongwith his 1st wife has ousted the opposite party no.2 from their house. Pursuant to that, the opposite party no.2 informed the Mahila Police, Pakur, wherein a case was also registered against the petitioner. At the time of grant of bail the petitioner assured before the court that he will take care of and he will ensure bidai of opposite party no.2 within a month after his release. But after getting bail the petitioner never visited opposite parties, rather gave threatening to kill them. The further case of the opposite party no.1 before the learned trial court was that the petitioner is a man of means. He has 3/4 bighas of fertile land and he is also involved in business, whereby he earns about Rs.10,000/- per month and as such the opposite party no.1 claimed Rs.1,500/- maintenance each for her and her son from the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner herein filed a show-cause before the learned trial court, where he has admitted about the marriage however, he has denied the demand of dowry. He has also admitted that he has no issue from his first wife so he has married opposite party no.2 to get a child. The petitioner further stated before the trial court that the opposite party no.1 was herself not ready to stay with the petitioner. It was also stated by him that he had pronounced 'talaque' on 21.12.2010 thrice time and as such he has given divorce. He further stated that he is not entitled to pay maintenance as he has already paid the prompt dower of Rs.1,500/- to her at the time of marriage.