Delhi District Court
Smt. Rukhsana vs Sh. Mohd. Haseen on 4 January, 2010
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUCHI LALER,
MM (MAHILA COURTS), KKD DELHI
CASE NO. 189/05
IN THE MATTER OF
1. Smt. Rukhsana
w/o Sh. Mohd. Haseen
d/o Sh. Liyakat Ali
2. Mohsin (minor)
s/o Sh. Mohd. Haseen
(petitioner no. 2 through petitioner no. 1 / his natural guardian)
Both r/o H. No. 1942, Gali No. 16B,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, New Mustafabad,
Delhi - 94. .......... petitioner
Versus
Sh. Mohd. Haseen
s/o Sh. Alla Noor
r/o H. No. 177, Gali No. 19,
New Mustafabad (Jiyauddin Pur),
Delhi - 94. .......... respondent
Date of institution : 23052005 Date on which the judgement has been reserved : 04012010 Date of judgement : 04012010 PETITION U/S 125 CR.P.C. FOR THE MAINTENANCE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS EXPARTE JUDGEMENT Vide this exparte judgement, I shall decide the petition U/s 125 : 2 : Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance moved by petitioners wherein it is stated that petitioner no.1 got married to the respondent on 02022000 as per Muslim Rites & Customs. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born. One child namely Aman expired after 15 days of his birth and another child namely Mohsin / petitioner no. 2, aged 3 years is in the custody of the petitioner no.1. It has been alleged that since the very beginning of the marriage, the respondent and his family members were not happy with the dowry articles and they had expected a scooter in the marriage so the petitioner no. 1 was harassed, teased, tortured for bringing inadequate dowry. The parents of the petitioner no. 1 had given Rs.30,000/ to the respondent so as to save her matrimonial life, however, the respondent and his family members started demanding more cash and articles from the parents of the petitioner no. 1. It has been alleged that on 01042004, the petitioner no. 1 showed her inability to fulfill illegal demand, the respondent and his family members throw out the petitioners in wearing clothes after giving merciless beatings to petitioner no. 1 since then, the petitioner no. 1 is residing with her parents. It has been claimed that the respondent is doing the sewing machine repairing work and earning Rs.9,000/ p.m. and also the respondent is working with property dealer at Singh Property Dealer at F : 3 : 1/170, Chand Bagh, Delhi and earns Rs.10,000/ p.m. The respondent is also helping his father in running his Kabari Godown at New Mustafabad, Delhi and earns Rs.6,000/ p.m. and the respondent is also having movable or immovable properties and as such maintenance @ Rs.5,000/ p.m. for petitioner no. 1 and @ Rs.2,500/ p.m. for petitioner no. 2 is prayed.
2. Reply has been filed wherein the respondent has admitted the factum of marriage and has stated that the petitioner no. 1 had left the house of the respondent at her own will without any rhyme or reason and the respondent has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending adjudication in the court of Sh. Pooran Chand, Learned Civil Judge, KKD, Delhi. The allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty have been traversed. It has been stated that 23 times panchayat was held by the respectable persons of the locality, however, the petitioner no. 1 is not willing to join the company of the respondent. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner no. 1 is doing the work of making of brassary and is earning Rs.150/ per day, hence, she is capable to maintain herself and petitioner no. 2. It has been stated that due to the behaviour of the petitioner no. 1, the parents of the respondent have turned out the respondent from their house and at present the respondent is residing in a tenanted room at the rent of Rs.600/ : 4 : p.m. The respondent has denied that he is doing the sewing machine repairing work and is working with property dealer at Singh Property Dealer at F1/170, Chand Bagh, Delhi. The respondent has further denied that he is helping his father in running his Kabari Godown at New Mustafabad, Delhi and having movable or immovable properties. The respondent has claimed that he is earning only Rs.3,000/ p.m. from job work.
3. Replication has been filed by the Petitioner wherein the assertions to the contrary have been controverted and has reiterated the facts stated in the Petition.
4. Vide order dated 18082006, interim maintenance was granted in favour of the petitioners whereby the respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/ per month in favour of each petitioner from the date of petition. Thereafter the matter was listed for petitioner's evidence, however, on 15112007, none appeared on behalf of the respondent, accordingly, the respondent was proceeded exparte by Learned Predecessor Judge.
5. The petitioner no. 1 has examined herself as PW1 and has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW1/A wherein she has reiterated the facts stated in the petition.
6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for petitioners and perused the record : 5 : with his assistance.
7. The testimony of the petitioner as regards harassment, torture, cruelty and non maintenance are deemed to have been proved for want of cross examination / rebuttal. PW1 / petitioner no. 1 has claimed that the respondent is doing the sewing machine repairing work and is working with property dealer at Singh Property Dealer at F1/170, Chand Bagh, Delhi. The testimony as regards the employment of the respondent remains uncontroverted, unrebutted and unchallenged. Keeping in view the nature of the job, the respondent is directed to make arrangement for Rs.2,000/ per month in favour of each petitioner from the date of filing of the present petition (Total Rs.4,000/ p.m. to be paid by the respondent to the petitioners).
8. Payment shall be made by 7th of every month by money order or be deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. Arrears shall be cleared within 3 months.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (SHUCHI LALER) ON 04012010 MM/MAHILA COURTS