- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The opposite party No. 2 has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice upon her. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 5th August 2010 passed by the
(2.) LEARNED Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 35 of 2008, in a proceeding under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, whereby, the petitioner was directed to return back the due amount of Den Mohar and the cost of the articles given at the time of marriage, as also to make the payment of the cost of maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month up till Iddat period to his divorced wife. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 35 of 2008 was filed by the opposite party No. 2, who is the divorced wife of the petitioner, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur, under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, alleging that the amount of Den Mohar was due to her which was not paid to her by the petitioner and she has also alleged that the articles given at the time of marriage was not returned back to her. The opposite party No. 2 had also prayed for maintenance upto the period of Iddat. The impugned order shows that though the petitioner appeared before the Court below upon getting the notice and filed his show-cause, but he did not adduce any evidence in the case and even the witnesses examined by the opposite party No. 2, who was the petitioner before the Court below, were not cross examined by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court below has relied upon by the evidence of the opposite party No.2 and has directed the petitioner to return back the due amount of Den Mohar and the cost of the articles as also taking into consideration the income of the petitioner to be about Rs. 2,000/- per month, has directed him to make the payment of the cost of maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month up till Iddat period. The total cost was calculated to Rs.19,900/-, which was directed to be paid by the petitioner to his divorced wife within a period of one month.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the petitioner had returned back the entire articles and the amount of Den Mohar to the Opposite Party No.2 at the time of divorce. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.;