Fakaruddin Ahmed vs Parbin Sultana on 1 September, 2004

Gauhati High Court
Fakaruddin Ahmed vs Parbin Sultana on 1 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2005) 1 GLR 105
Author: I Ansari
Bench: I Ansari


JUDGMENT

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. None has appeared on behalf of the parties. Heard Mr. F.H. Laskar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 17.01.2002, passed in Criminal Revision No. 20/2001, the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, dismissed the revision, which arose out of the order, dated 17-07-2001, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, in MR Case No. 35/2000, Under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the order, dated 17-7-2001, are as follows :

The Opposite party herein instituted, as first party, MR Case No. 35/2000 aforementioned Under Section 125 Cr.P.C, her case being that she was legally wedded wife of the second party-petitioner herein, the second party demanded Rs. 25,000/- from the first party’s father and, on their failure to meet his said demand, she was driven out of her matrimonial house, she had to come to, and take shelter at, the house of her parents, she has no source of income of her own and though the second party has means, he has provided no maintenance to her. The first party, therefore, claimed for an amount of Rs. 500/- as maintenance. The second party-petitioner herein, while contesting the said maintenance proceeding, did not dispute the fact that first party was his legally wedded wife, but he claimed that the first party had, without sufficient cause, refused to live with the second party and that the second party had never demanded any money from the first party and/ or her parental family and/or assaulted her and/or drove her out of her matrimonial house. The second party also contended that he had no means of livelihood.

4. In the face of the facts indicated hereinabove, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, passed an order, on 17-07-2001, directing the second party-petitioner to pay Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance to the first party-opposite party herein with effect from the date of filing of the application for maintenance. Aggrieved by this order, the second party-petitioner filed the Criminal Revision No. 20/ 2001 aforementioned and the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, on considering the matter in its entirety, passed the impugned order, dated 17-01-2001, dismissing the revision.

5. Upon perusal of the materials on record and the orders aforementioned, I find that the impugned orders suffer from no illegality, incorrectness and/or impropriety inasmuch as the opposite party herein is admittedly, the legally wedded wife of the petitioner,the evidence on record shows that the first party-opposite party was driven out of her matrimonial house, she has been living with her parents and she has no source of income of her own; whereas the second-party is an able bodied person, and he, having married the first party, is liable to maintain her. Considered thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

6. The revision is wholly without merit and, therefore, deserves dismissal.

7. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this revision is dismissed.

8. Send back the LCR.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *