MD. ABDUL SUKUR Vs. RUSNA BEGAM
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Md. Abdul Sukur
Click here to view full judgement.
S. Talapatra, j. -
(1.)Heard Mr. H. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Majumder, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.)By means of this petition, under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 1/8/2018 delivered in Crl. Misc.(125)-130 of 2017 on a solitary ground that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on 7/4/2017 or any date thereafter as per Muslim personal law. Even the petitioner has asserted that, that is the reason why no Kabinnama was executed. The Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura did not accept the plea of the petitioner by returning the finding as follows :
"The above mentioned deposition of petitioner's witnesses are corroborated by Ext.2, the resolution of panchayat. from Ext.2, it can be found that petitioner and opposite party are husband and wife. The signature of opposite party on Ext.2 is identified by PW.4 and the same is marked as Ext.2/B. Ext.1, the marriage invitation card also show that petitioner is the wife of opposite party. In my view, the above mentioned evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner is creditworthy. I find Ext.2, the resolution is believable for in the resolution the name of the opposite party is mentioned that Sukur Ali and signature as husband is also in the name of Sukur Ali. If the said document is created by petitioner falsely, the name of husband opposite party in the said resolution should have been written as Abdul Sukur and not as Sukur Ali. Thus, I am of the opinion that Ext.2, the resolution is natural and cogent. Even though, objection was given while exhibiting Ext.1 and Ext.2 but, I find, said documents are necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties and, therefore, the same are accepted under Sec. 14 of the Family Court Act."
(3.)The other aspects are, to be candid, not under challenge inasmuch as, the respondent who was the petitioner in the proceeding under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. was living separately and she has proved that she had no means to maintain herself whereas the petitioner herein (the Opposite Party in the proceeding below) was neglecting to maintain her. Having observed thus, by the judgment dtd. 1/8/2018, the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5000.00 per month.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.