Md. Makbul Alam vs State of Jharkhand and Another

H. C. Mishra

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Judgment dated 1.2.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 25 of 2009, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur, whereby in a proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C., the Court below has directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.1000/-per month as maintenance to his deserted wife and he was also directed to pay Rs. 1000/-as expenses of the proceeding.

The proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated by opposite party No. 2 wife, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and was ultimately driven out from her matrimonial home. She has also stated that she has no means to maintain herself and her husband''s income was about Rs. 10,000/-per month. Accordingly, she filed the application claiming maintenance of Rs. 2000/-per month.

It appears that the petitioner appeared in the Court below and filed his show cause, wherein, though he admitted the marriage between the parties, but he claimed that his wife had divorced him and she had remarried one Faizul Khan, with whom she is living. It further appears from the impugned order that both the parties had adduced evidence, but the petitioner did not cross-examine P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were examined on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in the Court below. P.W.1 had also stated about the income of the petitioner. It also appears that P.W.2 is none-else than Faizul Khan, whom this petitioner alleged that opposite party No.2 had remarried, but this witness also was not cross-examined by the petitioner in the Court below. P.W.3 is the O.P.No.2 herself, who has proved her case and also stated about the income of her husband. In her cross-examination she has denied the suggestion of either divorcing the petitioner, or to have married Faizul Khan. She was not cross-examined on the point of income of the petitioner, as it appears from the impugned order.

The petitioner had also examined himself in the Court below, but he could not prove the factum of remarriage of opposite party No. 2 with Faizul Khan. It further appears that it was admitted by the petitioner that he had married another lady. Thus, taking into consideration all these facts and the income of the petitioner, which was not denied by the petitioner in the Court below, the Court below has granted maintenance of Rs. 1000/-per month to opposite party No. 2 wife and also directed to pay Rs. 1000/-as expenses of the proceeding.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch, as opposite party No. 2 had already divorced the petitioner and the Court below had not given any finding about the income of the petitioner.

I do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch, as the impugned order clearly shows that the petitioner could not prove the alleged marriage of opposite party No. 2 wife with Faizul Khan, and it also appears from the impugned order that the income of the petitioner as claimed and proved by opposite party No. 2, was not denied by the petitioner. The factum of divorce is also denied in the present case, which also could not be proved by the petitioner. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.