Delhi District Court
Smt. Roshanara vs Sh. Sajid Ali on 7 May, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAHILA COURT (E)
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Case No. 58/1997
1. Smt. Roshanara,
D/o Sh. Nizamuddin,
W/o Sh. Sajid Ali,
2. Km. Farha,
D/o Sh. Sajid Ali,
3. Master Kamran,
S/o Sh. Sajid Ali,
4. Km. Afsa,
D/o Sh. Sajid Ali,
(petitioners no.2,3 and 4 being minor through
Mother and natural guardian)
All R/o Gali No.1, East Laxmi Market,
Near Radhu Palace Shahdra, Delhi. ..........Petitioners.
Versus
Sh. Sajid Ali
S/o Sh. Shabir Ali,
R/o Saifi Road, Mohalla Sarai Mian,
District Aligarh U.P. ........Respondent.
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by Smt. Roshanara and her three minor children namely Kumari Farha, Master Kamran and Kumari Afsa (hereinafter referred to as petitioners) against Sh. Sazid Ali (herein after referred to as respondent).
Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 2
2. The brief facts of the present petition are that petitioner no.1 was married to respondent according to Muslim rites and ceremonies and out the wedlock three children were born and when petitioner no.4 was born in December 1996 after that petitioner no. 1 was turned out of the matrimonial home.. It is further alleged that respondent was having illicit relationship with one Sanno and after about 1½ years of marriage respondent had eloped with said Sanno to Mumbai where both stayed together for about two months and when petitioner no.1 raised objection, she was mercilessly beaten up by the respondent.
3. It is further alleged now Sanno is married and has three children and respondent has now developed illicit relationship with one Tabassum who is daughter of maternal uncle of respondent. It is further stated that when petitioner no.1 was seven months pregnant, at about 2.00pm respondent entered into the room of Tabassum who also used to reside in the next door house. The room was bolted from inside and when petitioner no.1 peeped through the window she saw that respondent was having sexual intercourse with said Tabassum. It is further stated that respondent used to do unnatural sex with petitioner no.1. He used to subject the petitioner with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry. Petitioner no.1 submits that she is unable to maintain herself as Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 3 well as her three minor children and she does not have any source of income.
4. Petitioner no.1 has alleged that respondent is having his own factory where he manufactures duplicate locks of Godrej and earns Rs. 20,000/- therefrom and he is also having his own ancestral house and other immovable property in his name. It is further stated that respondent has deliberately refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners. In the present petition maintenance @ Rs. 500/- each is claimed by petitioner no.1.
5. Notice of the present petition was sent to respondent, however the respondent did not appear and was proceeded exparte and exparte judgment was passed in the year 1998. However, the said judgment was set aside and the matter was again remanded back and written statement was filed by the respondent.
6. In the written statement respondent has stated that he has already divorced the petitioner no.1 on 24.2.1997 by pronouncing oral talak and said talak was duly communicated to petitioner no.1 vide letter sent through registered post alongwith meher amount and maintenance for the iddat period. It is further stated that the factum of talak was published by the respondent in Hindi Daily "IN DINO" dated 4.4.1997. It is further stated in the written statement that in view of said talak, respondent is not liable to maintain petitioner no.1. It is further stated that petitioner no.1 came to her Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 4 parental home when petitioner no.3 was 1¼ months and she never resumed her matrimonial home and she was not even pregnant from the respondent at relevant time. He has further stated that in October 1995, the petitioner no.1 was caught red-handed while writing letter to one of her paramour and in said letter, the paramour has claimed petitioner no.3 to be his issue, therefore, petitioner no.3 is not entitled to any maintenance.
7. It is further stated that paternity of petitioner no.2 is admitted by the respondent and paternity of petitioners no. 3 and 4 from the said wedlock is denied by him. He has further stated that petitioner no.1 was in the habit of staying at her parental home for more than 8 months at a time. It is further stated that when the respondent visited the parental home of petitioner no.1 to take her back, she was not found present there and on one or two occasions she returned to her parental home late at night. It is further stated that there was no demand of dowry in the marriage as petitioner no.1 and respondent happened to be the issues of two real sisters. He further submits that petitioner no.1 is skilled in tailoring/embroidery/knitting and is earning Rs. 8000/- per month. Respondent has denied that he is having his own factory where he manufactures duplicate locks of godrej or that he is earning Rs. 20000/- per month therefrom. It is further stated that he is a casual labourer and does not earn more than Rs. 2000/- per month and he Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 5 has to contribute in the maintenance of his family.
8. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed, wherein petitioner has denied that she has already been divorced on 24.2.1997 in accordance with Muslim Law. She has further denied that the said talaq was duly communicated to the petitioner no.1 vide letter sent through registered AD. She has also denied of having received any meher amount or maintenance of iddat period. She has also denied the fact of publishing of talak in Hindi Daily "IN DINO". She has further denied the allegations of the respondent and she has denied the illegtimacy of petitioners no.3 and 4. She has also denied that she is doing any tailoring job and has stated that she has no source of income. She has also re-affirmed the fact that respondent is having factory of manufacturing duplicate locks of godrej and is earning Rs. 20000/- per month.
9. Thereafter evidence was led by the parties. In examination in chief of petitioner no.1 all the contents of the petition have been reiterated. She was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel wherein she has stated that her mother and respondent's mother were real sisters. She denied the suggestion that being from Delhi she could not adjust herself with respondent at Aligarh, U.P. She further denied that she did not observe Parda System at her matrimonial home or that she used to misbehave with the respondent. She admitted that she used to stay at her parental Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 6 home for 8-10 months continuously. She denied the suggestion that she used to return late at night at her parental home when the respondent used to come to take her back to her matrimonial home. She further denied that she had refused to go to the matrimonial home on several occasions from her parental home. She admitted that the respondent had pronounced Talak dissolving their marriage. However, she stated that she did not received any notice Ex. PW-1/DA sent through registered post. She further stated that notice of divorce dated 24.2.1997 was not received by her. She further stated that the address mentioned in Ex. PW-1/DA is correct. She further stated that she did not know whether the respondent had published about the divorce in the newspaper on 4.4.1997. She further denied the factum of receiving maintenance for the iddat period. She further denied that she had written any letter Ex. PW-1/DD and the same is in her hand writing. She further denied the suggestion that respondent had caught her red handed while writing said letter. She further stated that she left the matrimonial home lastly in November 1996 and came to her parental home. She denied the suggestion that at the relevant time when she left the matrimonial home last she was not pregnant. She also denied the suggestion that her son Kamran was born out of illicit relationship with Tony. It is further denied that respondent works as a labour in a factory on daily wages. She also denied that Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 7 respondent does not have any relation with Shanno. She further denied the suggestion that she is earning Rs. 8000/- per month by doing the work of tailoring. However she admitted that she is doing the work of stitching and tailoring on a small scale. She has admitted the suggestion that she has filed the present case after the respondent had divorced her . She denied that monthly income of respondent is only Rs. 2000/- per month. After completion of cross examination of petitioner, petitioner's evidence was closed.
10. After closure of petitioner's evidence respondent filed his affidavit in evidence where he has also reiterated the contents of his written statement. Apart from the fact that he had sent a talak notice to petitioner no.1 Ex. PW-1/DA, he dispatched the maintenance amount through money order postal receipt Ex. PW-1/DB and his public notice published in Hindi Daily In Dino Ex. PW-1/DC, he further stated that he had performed second marriage with one Tabassum and out of the wedlock with said lady three children were born. He was cross examined by counsel for petitioner wherein he stated that three children were born from this marriage. He voluntarily stated that middle child i.e. petitioner no.3 does not belong to him who was born before petitioner no.4 who is claimed to be his legitimate child. He further stated that petitioner no.3 Kamran was born before the birth of his daughter Afsa. He admitted the suggestion that he had not lodged any police Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 8 complaint against petitioner no.1 for her behaviour and cruelty soon after marriage. He further stated that letter dated 14.10.1998 was received by him when petitioner no.1 was at Delhi. He further stated that the letter was delivered by the postman, but he cannot tell the date of its delivery. He further stated that the letter was received by his father who had handed over the same to petitioner no.1. He further stated that the said letter was found in his bed room and he cannot tell the name of the sender as the same is not mentioned in the letter. He further stated that when he enquired about the name of the sender from petitioner no.1 she feigned ignorance about the same. The name and address of the sender is not mentioned in the letter. He denied the suggestion that he had ever beaten petitioner no.1. He further denied the suggestion that he had fabricated said letter. He further denied the suggestion that he had gone to Bombay alongwith Shanno However, he admitted the fact that he had gone to Bombay for 11 days. He further denied the suggestion that petitioner no.1 was beaten by him when she objected to his alleged relationship. He admitted the suggestion that he has married with Tabassum and has four children from said marriage. He further stated that he had already divorced petitioner no.1 prior to his second marriage. He further denied the suggestion that he was caught in objectionable position by the petitioner no.1. He further denied the suggestion that he had ever shown porn Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 9 material to petitioner no.1 and forced her to have sex accordingly. He further denied the suggestion that he used to have unnatural sex with petitioner no.1. He further denied the suggestion he did not maintain petitioner no.1 on her refusal to fulfill his demands. He stated that he is working in a lock making factory. He further stated that he had earlier worked for about eight years with Morina Lock Company at a monthly wage of Rs. 2000/- per month. He left said job in the year 1996-1997. Thereafter he worked with Genious Lock Company for about three years at monthly wages of Rs. 2000/- owned by Daya Shanker Sharma. He further stated that he is presently working on contract basis and earn Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 4500/- per month. He further denied the suggestion that he is not working under anyone and is doing his own business of locks in his own factory and 8-10 labourers are working under him He further stated that he had sent Talak notice to petitioner no.1 in the year 1997 through advocate and sent another notice after about 1¼ month after his first notice, wherein it was mentioned he had divorced petitioner no.1. He further stated that he had visited the parental house of petitioner no.1 after sending the talak notice. He further stated that oral talak was pronounced in the absence of petitioner no.1, but in the presence of witnesses He further stated that there was no talak in the presence of witnesses, but the same was communicated to the petitioner through notice. He further Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 10 stated that he had not sent any notice to the petitioner asking her to resume the conjugal rites.
11. In support of his case respondent examined another witness (RW-2) Nizammuddin who was the father of petitioner no.1. RW-2 in his statement has stated that petitioner no.1 is his daughter. He further stated that he knows that his daughter petitioner no.1 was given notice by respondent for giving her talak. The said notice was given 13-14 years back. He admitted the suggestion that after divorce petitioner no.1 had filed the present case for maintenance. He further stated that he does not know whether his daughter had married one Naeem. He further stated that petitioner no.1 was presently living with him. He further stated that after her divorce his daughter lived with him for 3-4 years, thereafter she started living at some other address. He further stated that after staying at some other address for 3-4 years his daughter came back to him. He further stated that he does not know the address where his daughter lived during the intervening period. He further stated that he does not know with whom his daughter was living during the said intervening period. He further stated that he had never visited his daughter during the said intervening period. However, he was told by his daughter that she was living on rent and as she was unable to pay the rent she had returned back to him. He further stated that his daughter was living with her children in said rented Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 11 accommodation. He further stated that petitioner no.1 left his house after 3-4 years of her divorce as she was having dispute with his other children who were also living there. He further stated that during the intervening period petitioner no.1 had met his wife on few occasions, but she never came to meet him. He further stated that he is living with his wife. He further stated that when his daughter left him she was having three children and when she came back to him from the rented accommodation, she was having four children. The said fourth child is a male child namely Anas and the said child is still living with him. He further stated that when his daughter left him she had married with one Naeem and started living with him in a rented accommodation. He further stated that the child Anas was born out of the wedlock of his daughter and Naeem. He further stated that he was not aware whether due to her strained relations with second husband Naeem his daughter had returned back to him. He further stated that his daughter knows tailoring and embroidery but she is not doing any tailoring or embroidery work and she is not earning anything.
12. RW-2 was cross examined by counsel for petitioners. In his cross examination RW-2 stated that he had not seen any Nikahnama in respect to his daughter's second marriage. He admitted the suggestion that respondent is not paying any maintenance to his daughter regularly. He further admitted the Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 12 suggestion that he was having disputes with his other children over the dispute of liability of petitioner no.1 and on account of said disputes petitioner no.1 started living away from him. He admitted the suggestion that his wife used to pay maintenance to petitioner no.1 and her children when she was living away in rented accommodation. He admitted the suggestion that respondent had given divorce to his daughter without her consent. He further admitted that his daughter was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of respondent and his family members on account of dowry. He further admitted that respondent was having illicit relationship with Tabassum and whenever his daughter raised objections to said relationship she was beaten by respondent. It is correct that due to said relationship with one Tabassum the respondent had divorced his daughter and had married with said lady Tabassum. He further admitted that respondent had not given the mehr amount to his daughter after giving divorce. He further stated that he was not present at the time of her daughter's second marriage with one Naeem, but had heard about the said marriage from someone. He admitted that due to non-payment of maintenance by the respondent his daughter is facing hardship and her children are also not going to school. He further admitted the suggestion that he and his wife are bearing all the expenses of petitioner no.1 and her children.
Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali
13
13. Thereafter respondent's evidence was closed. After
completion of evidence of both the parties final arguments were heard from both sides.
14. In order to establish the case U/s 125 Cr. P. C., petitioner is required to prove:-
i) Relationship between the parties.
ii) Petitioner is residing separately from the respondent
with sufficient cause.
iii) Petitioner is unable to maintain herself.
iv) Respondent neglects or refuses to maintain the
petitioner.
v) Respondent has sufficient means to maintain the
petitioner.
15. Now let us analyze the facts of the present case in view of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as above
16. i) Relationship between the parties The factum of marriage of petitioner no.1 with respondent has not been disputed by the parties. However, it is alleged by the respondent that he had divorced the petitioner prior to filing of the present petition. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner in her cross examination and she has stated that she has filed the present case after the respondent had divorced her. However, in another paragraph she has stated that she did not receive any Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 14 notice of talak Ex. PW-1/DA sent through registered post. She also stated that she has not received any mehr amount or maintenance amount for the iddat period. Be be the case as it may be, now it is res-integra that even a divorced muslim wife is entitled to maintenance. In the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHABANA BANO VS. IMRAN KHAN I 2010 DMC 37 S.C. it was held by the hon;ble apex court that "even if a muslim woman has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband after the expiry of period of iddat also as long as she does not re marry." In view of the aforesaid judgment relationship between petitioner no.1 and respondent stands established and therefore petitioner no.1 is entitled to claim maintenance from respondent.
17. As regards the paternity of petitioner 2 and 4 are concerned the same has not been disputed by the respondent and therefore the relationship of petitioner no.2 and 4 and respondent stands established. As regards petitioner no.3 Master Kamran is concerned, the respondent has disputed his paternity. He has stated that petitioner no.3 is not his son and petitioner no.1 was having illicit relationship with some other person at Delhi and he has stated that petitioner no.3 does not belong to him. It is further stated that petitioner no.1 was caught red handed by him while writing letter Ex. RW-1/1 to her paramour and letter Ex. RW-1/2 was Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 15 recovered by him from her possession. He further stated that in the letter Ex. RW-1/1 petitioner no.1 has acknowledged the fact of petitioner no.3 being the legitimate child of paramour. He was cross examined by counsel for petitioner no.1 wherein respondent stated that he cannot tell the date on which the said letter was sent. He further stated that the letter was delivered by the postman, but he cannot tell the date of delivery. He further stated that the letter was received by his father who handed over the same to petitioner no.1 and the letter was not read by him at that time. He further stated that the said letter was recovered by him from their bed room and he read the letter and apprised about the same to his father. He further stated that he cannot tell the name of the sender as the same was not mentioned in the letter. He further admitted the address of the sender is not written. He denied the suggestion that he has fabricated the said letter. Though the respondent has alleged that petitioner was having illicit relationship with one Tony and petitioner no.3 had been born out of the said illicit relationship, but the petitioner has specifically denied that she had written any letter to anybody in her cross examination.
18. Apart from the allegations levelled with regard to the letter which has been produced by the respondent himself saying that the letter has been received by paramour of petitioner no.1, nothing Nothing has been proved with regard to illicit relationship of Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 16 petitioner no.1 with any person. Even he has failed to examine his own father who he alleges to have received the said letter. The respondent has further failed to summon any official from the postal department, who could have proved the authencity of the letter or the same being delivered at the address of the respondent. The allegations levelled are merely baseless. It is further pertinent to mention here that respondent has not disputed the paternity of petitioner no.4 Kumari Afsa, who has admittedly born after the birth of petitioner no.3. Therefore, merely levelling allegations against petitioner no.1, that she was having illicit relationship with someone and a child was born out of the said illicit relationship is not sufficient to deny the paternity of the child. He has failed to prove the same or bring any medical record/result of any medical test in his evidence which he could have done in case his averments were true. Hence petitioner no.3 is presumed to be legitimate child of the respondent and the relationship between respondent and petitioner no.3 also stands proved on record.
19. II & IV Petitioner is residing separately from the respondent with sufficient cause and respondent neglect or refuses to maintain petitioner.
The petitioner has alleged in the present case that the respondent was having illicit relationship with one Shanno and he went to Bombay with her for 2 months whereas the respondent has denied the aforesaid fact that he had gone to Bombay with Shanno Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 17 though he has admitted that he had gone to Bombay for 11 days. Further he has denied that Shanno had accompanied him. The petitioner has further stated that after the marriage of Shanno the respondent had developed illicit relationship with Tabassum who is daughter of maternal uncle of the respondent. Petitioner has stated that when she was 7 months pregnant, at about 2.00pm the respondent entered the room of Tabassum who used reside in the next door house, and bolted the room from inside. When petitioner peeped inside through the window she saw that respondent was having sexual intercourse with Tabassum. No suggestion has been put to the petitioner by respondent with regard to the illicit relationship with Tabassum. It is further pertinent to mention here that after giving divorce to petitioner, respondent had married with Tabassum which has been admitted him and out of the said wedlock four children were born. The respondent got married just after he divorced petitioner no.1. Further it is also pertinent to mention here that its own case of the respondent that he is disputing paternity of petitioner no.3 and despite levelling allegations of illicit relationship against petitioner no.1, she remained there and petitioner no.4 was also born out of the parties herein thereafter. The period of stay of petitioner no.1 at the matrimonial home till the birth of petitioner no.4 after the birth of petitioner no.3 would have been difficult in these circumstances. It Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 18 is also admitted that she left the matrimonial house after the birth of petitioner no.4. Since petitioner in her affidavit has stated about the illicit relationship of respondent with Tabassum and as respondent is also disputing the paternity of petitioner no.3, both ground are themselves sufficient for petitioner no.1 to live away from respondent.
20. Respondent has admitted that he has never filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rites or never asked the petitioner to resume the conjugal rites. Instead he immediately got married with Tabassum after pronouncing talak with petitioner no.1. Hence, in these circumstances, it can very well be presumed that under the compelling circumstances created by the respondent she was living separately from the respondent with a sufficient cause. In the back drop of aforesaid observation the second essential ingredient stands established.
21. As regards the fourth ingredient, it is admitted that petitioner no.1 was not maintained after she was turned out from matrimonial home and respondent failed to discharge his bounden duty of maintaining petitioner no.1 and her children. Even though, he has alleged that he had pronounced divorce to petitioner no.1 , but even no provision for maintenance was made towards three children. Hence, fourth ingredient to envoke section 125 Cr.P.C. also stands proved on record.
Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 19
22. iii) Petitioner is unable to maintain herself Petitioner has stated that she has no source of income. Though the respondent has alleged that petitioner no.1 is doing the work of tailoring and stitching and is earning Rs. 8000/- per month. Though the said fact has been denied by the petitioner no.1. However petitioner no.1 has admitted that she is doing the work of tailoring in a small scale. It is a well settled law that a woman can do work for her basic survival and survival of her children and the same would not disentitle her from claiming maintenance U/s 125 Cr.P.C. It is trite that a woman should not be a destitute for claiming maintenance U/s 125 Cr.P.C. Even if it is presumed that she is doing some work of tailoring for her basic survival after desertion by the respondent, the same would not disentitle her from claiming maintenance. Reliance is placed upon ANURADHA VOHRA VS. SANDEEP VOHRA 10(2004) DLT 546. The respondent has further alleged that petitioner no.1 has re-married with someone and to prove his said contention he has examined father of petitioner no.1 as RW-2 wherein RW-2 has stated that his daughter has re-married with Naeem and one male child namely Anas is born out of said wedlock. He was cross examined by counsel for petitioner wherein he stated that he had not seen any documents like Nikahnama regarding second marriage of his daughter with said Naeem. It would not be out of place to mention Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 20 here that after evidence of Nizamuddin father of petitioner no.1 the respondent did not take any steps to confront the petitioner with the statement made by her father or to bring forth the further facts in the court to prove the alleged second marriage of petitioner no.1. Merely statement of RW-2 who is father of petitioner to the effect that petitioner no.1 has re-married and one son has been born out of the said wedlock, is not sufficient to prove the re-marriage of petitioner no.1. No documents has been placed by the respondent in this regard. Further he has not put any suggestion to petitioner no.1 during her cross examination in this regard. Even in case the petitioner was examined prior to examination of RW-2,he ought to have summoned the petitioner again and would have cross examined her on this aspect. In the statement of RW-2, the mentioning of fact regarding the second marriage of petitioner no.1 is not sufficient to prove her re-marriage. Hence, the contention of respondent regarding the second marriage of petitioner no.1 is turned down. Therefore, the averments of petitioner stands proved. Therefore, the third ingredient for invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. also stands established.
23. V) Respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner.
Petitioner no.1 has alleged that respondent is having his own factory where he manufactures duplicate locks of Godrej and earns Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 21 Rs. 20,000/- therefrom and he is also having his own ancestral house and other immovable property in his name. However, the respondent has stated that he is working as a casual labour and earns Rs. 2000/- per month. In his cross examination he has stated that he had earlier worked for about eight years with Morina Lock Company at a monthly wage of Rs. 2000/- per month. He left said job in the year 1996-1997. Thereafter he worked with Genious Lock Company for about three years at monthly wages of Rs. 2000/- owned by Daya Shanker Sharma. He further stated that he is presently working on contract basis and earn Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 4500/- per month. He has further denied the suggestion that he is not working under anyone and is doing his own business of locks in his own factory and 8-10 labourers are working under him. He has further stated that he does not own any house and he is living in one portion of the house belonging to his parents. He further stated that he is suffering from vision problem for past 1½ year. He has further stated that out of his second marriage four children were born that means he is maintaining seven children out of his own wedlock and his two wives as well as himself. It has also come in evidence that he had once gone to Bombay and stayed there for a period of 11 days admittedly. Respondent has also stated that he also does not own any ancestral property. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present scenario, factum that the respondent is Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 22 maintaining himself as well as his family members at the meager income of Rs. 4500/- is highly improbable and unbelievable.. He has nowhere denied the suggestion that he is not living in the ancestral house. It is very much clear from the facts and circumstances that he is deliberately concealing his true income in order to deprive the petitioner and her children from maintenance. The fact that the respondent had gone to Bombay for 11 days also shows his financial status. It is nowhere mentioned as to for what purpose he had gone to Bombay. It is very difficult to believe that a man in rags could have visited such a far off place. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, his income is assessed to be Rs. 22000/- per month. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner. Hence fifth ingredient for invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. stands well proved.
24. Conclusion & Relief Keeping into account the assessed income of the respondent, and further the fact that respondent has to maintain his second wife and four children born out of second marriage as well his first wife (petitioner no.1) and the three children born out of his first wife, the family income has to be divided into 11 portions out of which two portions are to be retained by the respondent and the remaining 9 portions have to be divided amongst respondent's two wives and seven children he is directed to pay maintenance to petitioners @ Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali 23 Rs. 2000/- per month to each from the date of filing the petition. Petitioner no.1 is entitled to claim maintenance till she gets re- married or till the law otherwise permits and petitioners no. 2,3 and 4 are entitled to claim maintenance till they attain the age of majority or till the law other wise permits. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (Vandana Jain)
On 7.5.2012 MM/Mahila Court (E)
Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali
24
Case No. 58/2007 Roshanara& Others VS Sajid Ali