- (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 24.9.2008, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Baghpat in Case No. 986 of 2008 (Smt. Vakila and another vs. Isab Ali alias Bhura) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat whereby the application of the revisionist-applicant no. 1 Smt. Vakila moved under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, was rejected.
(2.) The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this revision are that an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by Smt. Vakila on behalf of herself and her minor daughter Km. Nargis on the ground that marriage of revisionist no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized in the year 1983 in accordance with Muslim Rights and Customs in which 152.5 tola silver was fixed as Mehar. After the marriage the applicant-revisionist no. 1 came to live at her matrimonial house in District Muzaffar Nagar and performed her marital obligation towards her husband and other family members to the satisfaction of all concerned and all family members and husband were pleased with the behaviour and working of the applicant no. 1. That for some time all went well but after some time the opposite party no. 2 and other family members started taunting and ill treating Smt. Vakila, applicant no. 1 for bringing for sufficient dowry. In the mean time, the opposite party no. 2 applied for the post of Constable in Border Security Force (B.S.F.) and for that purpose Rs. 50,000/- was demanded from the parents of the applicant no. 1. In order to support, Rs. 50,000/- was given in cash to the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 was selected in B.S.F. and from the wedlock a daughter was borne out in the year 1987. Due to birth of female child, the husband of applicant-revisionist no. 1 started sarcasting remark and used to ill treat her female child and after some time for want of proper care and treatment female child died. With the consent of Smt. Vakila, applicant-revisionist no. 1, the opposite party no. 2 adopted one female child namely Nargis. In the year 2005, the opposite party no. 2 married further with one Shakila without obtaining consent of Smt. Vakila. Out of wedlock of the opposite party no. 2 and Shakila one male child was born in the year 2006 and due to birth of the male child, the position of applicant no. 1 became more worse and she was beaten up petty issues by the husband and other family members. Ultimately, she was ousted from the house of her husband on 01.07.2007. Thereafter she along with her father came back in Maika. Since the time of her return the opposite party no. 2 had not taken any care of applicant no. 1 and 2 and no maintenance was given. Her husband is getting salary Rs. 20,000/- per month. The applicant no. 1 is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. She tried many times to contact her husband but her husband refused to either take her back or to maintain hence finding no other alternative the applicant no. 1 filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. to get maintenance.
(3.) The opposite party no. 2 filed written objection denying the allegation and stated that his marriage was performed without dowry. He neither made any comments nor taken Rs. 50,000/- for recruitment. According to Muslim law, there is no provision of adoption and after taking divorce from the applicant, he contracted the second marriage with Shakila. On 25.4.2005, He had given divorce by saying Talak, Talak, Talak and also handed over her articles, Mehar and maintenance during Iddat. Applicant no. 2 is not entitled to get maintenance. He is getting salary near about Rs. 7,000/- per month.;