Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt.Shabana vs Mohammad Ansari on 3 October, 2017

                    CRR-1092-2015
              (SMT.SHABANA Vs MOHAMMAD ANSARI)


03-10-2017

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH
                    AT INDORE
       SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI
            JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
               CR.R. No.1092/2015
   Smt. Shabana W/o Mohd. Sabir @ Aslam Ansari
                          Vs.
        Mohd. Ansari S/o Abdul Vayab Ansari
                     -x-x-x-x-x-x-
 Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
              None for the Respondent.
                     -x-x-x-x-x-x-
                    ORDER

(Passed on 03/09/2017) The Petitioner has challenged order dated 22/06/2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.562/2011 by the Add. Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore whereby the learned Judge allowed the application of the Respondent u/s 127 Cr.P.C. and cancelled the maintenance awarded in favour of minor son of the Petitioner vide order dated 13/01/2003 passed in maintenance case No.615/2002.

2. Facts in brief are that the Petitioner and Respondent were married as per Muslim rites and rituals. They were blessed with a son. Their marriage could not run happily. They developed differences and parted their ways. The Petitioner started living separately with her minor son. She filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance for both of them. The learned Trial Court dismissed the claim of the Petitioner and awarded maintenance in favour of minor son @ Rs.1,500/- per month vide order dated 15/01/2003.

3. Alleging that the Petitioner entered into a second marriage and therefore, he is not responsible for granting maintenance any more, Respondent/husband filed an application before the Family Court, which was allowed and the order dated 13/01/2003 awarding maintenance to minor son was cancelled.

4. The Petitioner has approached this Court stating that order of the trial Court is erroneous and contrary to law and facts. The learned Family Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence produced by the parties. It has wrongly placed reliance over the testimony of the Respondent. It has failed to appreciate that in mark-sheet Ex.D/1 name of father mentioned as “Mohd”, which does not mean that the Petitioner has entered into the second marriage. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that “Sabir” is her father and she is living in the house of her father. Order passed by the learned Family Court is prima facie illegal, erroneous and against the settled principles of law, therefore, the same be set-aside.

5. Per contra, the Respondent has reiterated the facts stated in his statement before the learned Family Court.

6. It is mentioned in the petition filed before the Family Court by the Respondent that in the year 2011, he came to know that his wife has entered into the second marriage with one Mohd. Sabir @ Aslam Ansari Khan resident of near Mosque of Mominpura, Juni, Indore and she is living with her second husband and minor son of the Respondent Shahnawaj. In Statement he has stated that his son is presently studying in S. Usman School. In his mark-sheet name of the father is mentioned as “Sabir”. Similarly, in a certificate issued by the school regarding fees of Shanawaz, name of the father is also mentioned as “Sabir”. The Petitioner has secretly entered into marriage with “Sabir”. He has also filed few photographs showing intimacy between the Petitioner and Sabir. His statement is supported by mark-sheet Ex.P/2, certificate Ex.P/3 and photographs Ex.P/4 to P/11. In the mark-sheet and certificate, name of father of Shahnawaj is mentioned as “Sabir” or “Mohd Sabir Ansari”. The Petitioner has not rebutted that these mark-sheet or certificate are not related to their minor son Shahnawaz.

7. In the mark-sheet Ex.D/ 1 filed by the Petitioner herself, father’s name of Shahnawaj is mentioned as “Mohd.” It is not explained by the Petitioner that what does this Mohd mean and as to why full name of Respondent is not mentioned as name of father of minor son Shahnawaj.

8. The learned Family Court has observed that facts stated by the Respondent on Oath could not be rebutted by the Petitioner and Petitioner has not submitted any explanation, as to how name of any other person instead of the name of Respondent is mentioned as father in these documents of minor son; therefore, the learned Family Court has rightly held that in the changed circumstance, the minor son is not entitled to get any maintenance from the Respondent and cancelled the order of awarding maintenance dated 13/01/2003.

9. I do not find any incorrectness, illegality or perversity in the order of the trial Court. I also find that there is no ground for interference in the same. Present petition is bereft of merit, liable to be and is dismissed hereby.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE