GULAM GAUSE GULAM MOHAMED KONKANI Vs. AKHTARI GULAM GAUSE KONKANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original opponent-husband has preferred this revision application to challenge the order pased against him by J. M. F. C. , Bhiwandi, in Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 1985 directing him to pay Rs. 400. 00 per month towards maintenance from the date of application and that the said maintenance amount shall be paid by the 12th day of each succeeding month and he shall also pay Rs. 500. 00 towards costs of the application to the applicant, the wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present revision application are as under: The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code to claim maintenance from her husband the present revision petitioner alleging that their marriage took place according to Muslim Personal Law on 22nd April 1984 at Padgha, taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane that immediately after the marriage she was taken to Nasik by the husband at his place of residence and she resided there for two days, that on 24th day of February 1984 she was brought back to her fathers house and thereafter again she was taken to Nasik by her father on 29th April 1984, that thereafter on 5th May 1984 the husband brought her back to Padgha and promised that he would take her back soon thereafter; but the husband did not come to take her back in spite of letters sent by her. Therefore, along with her maternal uncle she went to husbands friend one Ainullah at Santacruz where the husband used to frequently visit and fortunately the husband was there at the house of Ainullah at that time and he told that his family members did not like her and, therefore, she should reside with her parents for some period and thereafter he would make some arrangements of separate residence and then will take the applicant back for co-habitation; but he did not do so, and therefore, after a period of about two months she was taken by her uncle to Nasik, but she did not succeed in cohabiting with the husband. She further claimed that she thereafter learnt that her husband had contacted marriage again with another girl from Bhiwandi. She, therefore, sent a notice on 4th October 1984 andclaimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the husband as he had got married second time, and as he had neglected and refused to take her back to his house. The husband replied to the said notice on 12th October 1984 and gave false reply but in the said reply he admitted that he had got married second time. The wife, therefore, claimed that she is entitled to reside separately from her husband as she is refused and neglected to be maintained by the husband and as also that he had got married second time during the subsistence of their marriage. She claimed in the petition Rs. 500/- by way of maintenance for herself. She also contended that she is unable to maintain her.

(3.) THE husband resisted the application and d raised several contentions. He also contended that the wife was not legally wedded wife to him. He also denied that he had neglected and refused to maintain her. He also denied that he had sufficient means to maintain her and that the wife was unable to maintain her. On the strength of the evidence led before the learned Magistrate, he found that the wife had established that she is the legally wedded wife of the husband and that she was refused and neglected to be maintained by the husband also that he had got married second time and, therefore, the wife was entitled to reside separately and claim maintenance. The learned Magistrate also found that the wife was unable to maintain herself and the husband had sufficient means to maintain her. He, therefore, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to the wife. Being aggrieved by the said order of maintenance against him, the husband has come in the revision to this Court.