- (1.) RAVI Nath Verma, J 1. This revision has been preferred by the sole petitioner Mokhtar Ahmad against the order dated 31st March, 2011 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case no. 396 of 2003, whereby and whereunder on a petition filed by the present opposite party no.2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the court below directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,000/ - per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/ - per month to her minor daughter from the date of filing of the said petition within 15th of each calendar month and also to pay the arrears of maintenance in 30 equal installments.
(2.) IT appears from the record that the aforesaid petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code was filed by the opposite party no.2 in the court below stating therein that the petitioner and this opposite party are the legally married husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 21.01.1968 according to Muslim Custom and out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with one son and two daughters. It is alleged that after the marriage of one daughter and one son, the present opposite party no.2 was assaulted by her husband and she was also ousted of her matrimonial house and since then she has been residing along with her minor daughter at her parents house at Giridih. It is also stated that petitioner started neglecting the opposite party no.2 and refused to maintain her and her daughter Rukhsar Praveen. Since the opposite party no.2 had no source of income, she requested her husband to provide maintenance to her and to her minor daughter but no amount was ever given though the husband was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/ - per month being an employee of BCCL, Salanpur Colliery. In the said petition, the opposite party no.2 prayed for maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - for herself and Rs.2,000/ -for her daughter.
(3.) AFTER issuance of notice by the court below, the present petitioner appeared and filed his show cause stating therein that the petition filed under Section 125 of the Code is not maintainable and though the opposite party no.2 was his legally married wife but he had given "Talak" to her and informed her in writing also on 15.04.1977. The petitioner denied that Rukhsar Parveen born out of their wedlock and that the only intention of opposite party is to grab his retiral benefits, which he has received from B.C.C.L. It was also stated that the opposite party no.2 was working in a Glass Factory at Giridih and was competent to maintain herself and that a Muslim woman is not entitled for maintenance after Talak from her husband under Section 125 of the Code in view of Section 5 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Both parties led evidences in court below and after considering the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, the court below directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the present opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as indicated above.;