Md. Imam Hussain Ansari vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Amreshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the parties.

In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-4-2004, passed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau in Cr. Revision No. 108 of 2000, dismissing the Revision filed by him and affirming the order of the learned Magistrate passed u/s 125, Cr.P.C, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 350/- per month to the Opposite Party No. 2 from the date of filing of the application by her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly submitted that there was no valid marriage between the parties. It is submitted that according to the Muslim law, the Nikahnama must contain signature of at least two male witnesses but in the alleged Nikahnama, which was produced by the claimant-wife, there was only one witness of the marriage and therefore it was not fulfilling the requirement of law and, as such, the marriage was not valid.

It was further submitted that the signature of the petitioner appearing in the said Nikahnama was also not of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied on the decision in the case of Mohd. Belal v. Sogra Khatoon reported in 1990 E C C 306 (Pat).

From the impugned orders i.e. the order passed by the learned Magistrate and also the order of the Revisional Court, it appears that the respective cases of the parties have been elaborately dealt with and the evidence adduced on their behalf have also been discussed and then it has been found that there was a valid marriage between the parties and all the requirements for grant of maintenance as envisaged u/s 125, Cr.P.C. have been established by the claimant-wife. Both the Courts below have on consideration of the facts and the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Praya Dixit and Another, have held that in a maintenance proceeding strict proof of performance of marriage is not required.

In the present case, I find that both the Courts-below have come to a concurrent finding of fact on the basis of record that the claimant wife has successfully established the facturn of marriage. Therefore, now at this stage, concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed by this Court by re-appreciation of evidence. So far the dispute regarding the signature of the petitioner in Nikahnama by the petitioner is concerned, I find that the petitioner has simply denied his signature on the said Nikahnama but has not established by cogent evidence that on Nikahnama did not bear his signature.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Praya Dixit and Another, mentioned above, which has been referred by both the Courts below, the decision of a Single Bench of Patna High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no avail.

Accordingly, I find no merit in this application and, as such, this application is dismissed.