Saban Uddin, Shahban Uddin vs Husna Begum Ansari

This is a petition, made under Sections 397/401, read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the

impugned order, dated 27-11-2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Criminal Revision No. 82/2014, setting aside the judgment and

order, dated 19-06-2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hailakandi, in MR Case No. 166 of 2011, under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C., and granting maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month to the present respondent, w.e.f. the date of the order.

I have perused the petition along with annexures furnished therewith including the copy of the impugned order. Also perused the record of the

learned trial Court including the evidence of the witnesses of both the parties.

I have also heard Mr. FU Borbhuiya, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. N Haque, learned counsel, representing the respondent.

The fact of the case is that a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated by the present respondent against the present petitioner in

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hailakandi, in MR Case No. 166 of 2011, claiming monthly maintenance allowance from him on

the ground of neglecting and refusing to maintain her, and driving her out of his house after subjecting her to torture.

The present petitioner, as opposite party in the aforesaid proceeding, contested the same by filing a written statement denying the allegations made

in the petition by the present respondent and claiming that the present respondent went to her parental home on her own will and inspite of effort made

by him to bring her back, she did not oblige him. The petitioner and her parents wanted him to remain in their house, which the present petitioner did

not agree. Thereafter, the present petitioner held a village meeting to settle the matter wherein he divorced the present respondent after giving her

maintenance for the iddat period as well as the amount fixed as Mahrana, vide Ext. A, Ext. B and Ext. C respectively.

The present respondent examined 2 witnesses including herself in support of her claim and the petitioner also examined 3 witnesses in support of his

case before the learned trial Court.

On perusal of the Ext. C, it appears that on 12-10-2011, after dissolution of the marriage between the parties, the differed Mahrana fixed in the

Kabinnama was received by the present respondent/wife of the present petitioner. Ext. A shows that the respondent/wife received an amount of

Rs.45,937/- as Mahrana and Ext. B is a document, which shows that on being failed to settle the dispute between them, the guardian of both parties

willingly decided to dissolve the marriage by Talaq and the Kabinnama was returned after divorce by pronouncing three Talaq as per Sarriat. None of

these documents are written by the respondent/wife; rather, written by a petition writer, who is examined as DW-1 by the petitioner.

The present respondent/wife before the learned trial Court denied the execution of such documents, i.e. Exts. A, B and C. It is evident from the

evidence on record that there is a complaint case pending, being CR Case No. 1201/2011, before the learned Court, wherein the allegation for forgery

relating to documents, marked as Exts. A, B and C is the subject-matter. Apart from this, the document, marked as Ext. B, shows that three Talaq

was pronounced in the village meeting by the present petitioner to the respondent/wife, on being agreed to by the guardian of both parties. The

divorce, if at all effected, was effected on being discussed by the guardian of both parties and not with that of respondent/wife. The legality of the

divorce will be taken slightly later.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Siddique Ali and ors. â€"vs- Fatema Rashid, reported in

2007 (2) GLT 1, particularly, paragraphs-23, 25 and 26 thereof, has submitted that the remedy for the present respondent/wife is available under the

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. This decision relates to a Muslim divorced woman, who has obtained divorce according

to Muslim Law, claiming maintenance.

The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamim Bano â€"vs- Asraf

Khan, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 636, wherein it has been held that a Muslim divorcee can seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and

the Magistrate is competent to pass an order granting maintenance to a divorcee.

The learned trial Court after consideration of the evidence on record, particularly, Exts. A, B and C held that the respondent/wife is a divorcee and

she has remedy elsewhere. However, the learned revisional Court of Sessions Judge did not agree to the decision rendered by the learned trial Court

and said that divorce has not been proved.

Now, let us see where divorce has been proved or not. Except Ext. B, which speaks of divorce, there is no other material on record to show that

the respondent/wife was divorced by the petitioner. That document itself is under challenge in a criminal complaint case. That apart, in the documents,

marked as Ext. B itself, it has been indicated that there was instant three Talaq pronounced in the meeting and instant three Talaq is not a valid Talaq

is a settled position of law.

The divorce being not proved by the petitioner, in the considered view of this Court, the decision rendered in Siddique Ali (supra) is not applicable

in the instant case as the said decision was rendered in a case where the issue was whether a Muslim divorcee is entitled to maintenance under

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. But, in the facts of the instant case, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamim Bano (supra) is applicable

as it has already been held by this Court that the alleged divorce is not proved by the petitioner.

That being so, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the revision petition that the divorce has not been established and the

observation of this Court above that the divorce, even if taken place, is not a valid divorce I view of the instant three Talaq, as indicated in the Ext.B.

Taking the above fact of in consideration, this Court is of the view that the decision rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in

Criminal Revision No. 82/2014, is correct and no interference is required by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. But the only issue

raised before this Court by the revision petitioner that the present respondent/wife being a divorcee is not entitled to maintenance, is answered as

above.

With the above observations and directions, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed, on merit.

Send down the LCR with a copy of this order.