Decided on March 31,1978

Sri. Jiauddin Ahmed Appellant
Mrs. Anwara Begum Respondents


Baharul Islam, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision made by the Petitioner, who is the husband, against the order passed by a first class Magistrate at Tinsukia in favor of the opposite party, Mrs. Anwara Begum, granting her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Code').
(2.) THE material facts may be briefly stated thus: The Petitioner is a Senior Executive of the A.O.C. Refinery at Digboi. Mrs. Anwara Begum was married to him at Marguerite in the year 1973. Both the parties are Musalmans and governed by Muslim Personal Law. The opposite party in her petition under Section 125 of the Code alleged that she lived with her husband for about 9 months during which time the marriage had been consummated. Thereafter the Petitioner began to torture her and even used to beat her. Ultimately the Petitioner prove her away whereupon she has been living with her father, who is a day laborer. She has alleged that the Petitioner draws a salary of Rs. 3,500/ - per month but in spite of that he has been neglecting her. So she prayed for grant of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month. The Petitioner filed a written statement. He admitted the marriage. He has alleged that there was incompatibility in the temperament between him and the wife. He has defied that he treated his wife with cruelty. He has alleged that the wife was allowed to go to her parents' house with the hope that she might change, but as she did not change, he had no alternative but to divorce her by pronouncing 'Talak' on 10.10.76 and the same was registered at Kazi's office on 12.10.76 at Dibrugarh. He has further averred that the wife was paid all sums payable under the Ma named an Law on the day of divorce".
(3.) BEFORE the Magistrate the wife examined herself and P.W. 2, the Head clerk of the Accounts Department, A.O.C. at Digboi to prove the Petitioner's income, and P.Ws 3 and 4 to prove currently. The Petitioner did not examine himself but examined one Murtaza as his witness to prove registration of the talaq.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.