- (1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 2.12.2002 passed in Misc. case No. 5 of 1997(Maintenance T.R. No. 391 of 2002) by the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in a proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure by which the Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- each to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 on the date of the application filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) The complainant-O.P. No. 1 had presented an application for initiation of the proceeding under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure stating interalia that she was married to Petitioner Md. Mokhter some 20 years ago without specifying the amount of Dain Mehar. She further narrated that out of their wedlock, a son namely Sadir Hussain. (O.P. No. 2) was born, who was about 10 years at the time of filing her petitions. As she was forced to leave her matrimonial home in the year 1987 she being the deserted woman then came to her parental home and started living with her mother but the husband did not maintain her. She further narrated that the Petitioner-husband had sufficient earning from his agricultural lands. On her instance a Panchayati was held duly attended by her mother and other relatives for her future arrangement but neither her husband nor any other relatives came, instead thereof she was driven out from her matrimonial village. During pendency of the application under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure the complainant-opposite party No. 1 filed a supplementary petition before the CJM Godda in Cr. Misc. Case No. 5 of 1997 narrating that since the Petitioner-husband in his causes shown in the proceeding under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure stated that he had divorced his wife i.e. complainant-O.P. No. 1 and therefore under changing circumstances she was inclined to seek relief under the Provisions of Muslin Women(Protection of Right & Divorce)Act, 1986 wherein the husband had to return Dain Mehar amount and other the gifts presented, to his wife on the eve of her "Nikah. She annended a list of such items as schedule A of the supplementary petition. It was further stated that even after pronouncement of divorce she was entitled to get maintenance till her life time by way of reasonable and fair maintenance within the Iddat period for meeting out her urgent needs. The complainant-opposite party No. 1 tried to interpret the reasonable and fair maintenance in her supplementary petition which included the provision for her residence, cloths and fooding etc. as provided under Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right and Divorce)Act, 1986. It was finally stated that she would be satisfied if payment to the extent of Rs. One lakh and fifty thousand would be made to her for residence and Rs. 1000/- per month would suffice her needs for whole of her life and accordingly, total sum of Rs. 2,10,950/- was demanded as per schedule A of the supplementary petition from her husband-Petitioner. However in the original petition a sum of Rs. 400/-each to her as well as her minor son was demanded being their monthly maintenance to which proceeding under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated in 1987 but final order was passed on 2.12.2001 allowing their prayer since the month of filing and initiation of the proceeding.
(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-husband submitted that witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of complainant-opposite party No. 1 who deposed hereunder: P.W.1 Bibi Erfana is the complainant-opposite party No. 1. In her statement she admitted that it was not a fact that she was divorced by the Petitioner-husband during pendency of the proceeding. She admitted that a sum of Rs. 200/- per month was paid to her under the orders of the court during pendency of the proceeding. P.W.2 Nasranu Mossamat is the mother of the complainant-opposite party No. 1. She testified that her daughter stayed with her husband only for 10 years but thereafter she was deserted. P.W.3 Bhuneshwar Manjhi supported the marriage between the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1. P.W.4 S.k. Latif also supported the case of the complainant-opposite party No. 1 but denied having his knowledge about pronouncement of divorce by the Petitioner husband to his wife. Amongst the witnesses produced on behalf of the husband-Petitioner were O.P.W.1 Madhusudan Goswamy who testified in the proceeding that Bibi Erfana was earlier married to another person and only after securing divorce from his first husband she was married to the Petitioner Md. Mokhtar and that he divorced her for the reason that she had developed illicit relation with the co-villager Rajendra Tanti to which a Panchayati was held but she escaped from the Panchayati O.P.W.2 Md. Ashique Ali also supported the version of the O.P.W. 1 and testified that Erfana was earlier married to another person and subsequently she was married to the Petitioner and she left the village about 18-19 years ago, thereafter the Petitioner Mokhtar divorced her. O.P.W.3 Md. Abdul Azis was consistent that the Petitioner Mokhtar had divorced his wife opposite party No. 1 about some 18 years ago to which a Panchayati was held but she escaned from the Panchavati for the reasons that she was having illicit, relation with the co-villager. Similar statement- was made by the O.P.W. 4 Md. Noor Alam also.;