Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Abdul Majid vs Unknown on 10 January, 2017
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1 10.01.2017
Ct.28 RP 104 CRR 4089 of 2016 In the matter of : Sk. Abdul Majid .... Petitioner Mr. Moshed Ali ..... For the Petitioner Order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore, Hooghly in Misc. Case No.73/1991 granting maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party/wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to the daughter i.e. Rs.3,500/- per month in all has been assailed.
The opposite party/wife was married to the petitioner on 17.11.1985 as per Muslims rites and custom. Initially the matrimonial life was peaceful. Trouble began when she conceived for the first time. Due to torture she had to undergo abortion. Thereafter her ill-treatment continued. She was not allowed to go to her parental home. Even her parents were ill-treated. There was an agreement arrived at over the issue of torture by and between the parties. In 1990 she again conceived and the petitioner again forced her for abortion but she refused. In 14.08.1990 she was driven out from her matrimonial home and in spite of opposition of the petitioner she gave birth a female child on 2 02.01.1991. The petitioner did not pay visit to the opposite party/wife after the child birth. He has a business of readymade garments and earns around Rs.20,000/- per month. The opposite party/wife was unable to maintain herself and accordingly prayed for maintenance for herself and her daughter. The petitioner contested the proceeding and claimed that the opposite party/wife used to misbehave at her matrimonial home and did not perform her matrimonial obligations. There was a salish over such dispute and a salishnama was executed wherein it was stated that the opposite party/wife would get Talak from the petitioner and she left the matrimonial home on such score. Finally Talak was pronounced. Initially, the learned Magistrate by order dated 30.01.2006 granted maintenance allowance to the minor daughter but denied maintenance to the opposite party/wife on the ground that Talak had been pronounced. Such order came to be challenged before this Court in CRR NO.1390 of 2006 wherein by order dated 27.02.2007 this Court set aside the order dated 30.01.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate in Misc. Case No.73 of 1991 rejecting the plea of maintenance of the opposite party/wife on the ground that Talak has not been proved. On remand the learned Magistrate has allowed the maintenance allowance to the opposite party/wife and the daughter, as aforesaid.
3
It has been argued that the petitioner is a divorced woman and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance allowance.
I am unable to accept such contention. In view of the finding recorded by this Court in CRR 1390 of 2006 wherein it is clear that the factum of Talak has not been proved in this case. That apart, it has been held by the Apex Court in Khatoon Nisa vs. State reported in (2010)1 SCC 666 that divorced Muslim woman is entitled to get maintenance allowance under law. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the opposite party/wife is entitled to maintenance allowance in the instant case. Coming to the quantum of the maintenance allowance, I find that the petitioner is a businessman and earns substantial income therefrom. The quantum of maintenance accordingly cannot be said to be disproportionately high bearing in mind the standard of living of the opposite party and growing needs of the daughter in the backdrop of rising price index. Accordingly I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The revision petition is, thus, dismissed. 4 Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)