Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State. However, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite service of notice.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for revisionist that impugned order is against facts and law and beyond jurisdiction and the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below is arbitrary and excessive. It has been submitted that the version of opposite party no.2 that she is married wife of revisionist or that on 07.05.1980 her marriage/nikah has been solemnized with revisionist according to Mahommedan rites and rituals, is false and baseless. At the time of alleged marriage, revisionist was a minor, aged about 14 years, and thus, he was not competent to enter into contract of marriage. The nikahnama filed by opposite party no.2 does not bear any signature of revisionist and that the said document is forged and fabricated. It was further argued that opposite party no.2 is not legally wedded wife of revisionist and thus, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable at her behest and therefore, impugned order is against law. It was further submitted that court below did not get examine the signature, shown on alleged Nikahnama, from any expert, rather the court itself compared the signature shown on alleged Nikahnama with admitted signatures of revisionist and concluded that the signatures shown on alleged Nikahnama were of the revisionist. It was submitted that in said Nikahnama the caste of revisionist has been mentioned as ''Sheikh Mansoori' whereas revisionist belong to ''Saifi" caste, which also indicates that alleged Nikahnama is fabricated. Learned counsel submitted that the court below also failed to consider that in evidence of opposite party no.2, the date of Nikah was mentioned as 07.08.1980, whereas in Nikahnama date of nikah is mentioned as 09.08.1979 and that at that time the revisionist might not have been attained the age of puberty. Learned counsel submitted that in view of above stated facts and circumstances, the marriage/nikah of revisionist with opposite party no.2 is not established and thus, the impugned order is liable to set aside.

4. Learned AGA has argued that there is no error in the impugned order. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are of summery nature and that the opposite party no.2 has established by evidence that she is legally wedded wife of revisionist. The Nikahnama has been proved in accordance with law. It was submitted that finding of the court below that Nikah of opposite party no. 2 with the revisionist is established is based on evidence and there is no substantial error or perversity and thus, the said finding can not be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

12. Keeping the aforesaid position of law in mind, in the instant matter it may be stated that the case of respondent no. 2 is that her nikah was solemnized with revisionist on 07.05.1980 and out of that marriage, she has given birth to a daughter, but she was killed by revisionist by administering some poisonous injection, whereas the case of the revisionist is that his marriage/nikah has never been solemnized with respondent no. 2 and they have never lived as husband and wife together. So far as this contention of revisionist is concerned that at the time of alleged marriage, revisionist was a minor and he was aged merely 14 years, it may be observed that as per high school mark sheet, date of birth of revisionist has been shown as 10.06.1966 and in the Nikahnama, the date of marriage/nikah has been shown as 09.01.1979 and that in Nikahnama, age of groom Irshad Ali has been shown as 16 years and age of bride Akhtari Begun has been shown as 14 years. Two persons, namely, Mohd. Ibrahim and Mohd. Akhlaq have been shown as witnesses in the Nikahnama and it has also been signed by Vakeel and Qazi. It is correct that in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent No. 2 has stated date of Nikah as 07.05.1980, whereas in Nikahnama, the date of Nikah has been shown as 09.01.1979, but such type of error cannot be given much importance in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Such type of error may crept in due to lapse of time or by mistake. The document relied by the respondent No. 2 in support of her claim is said Nikahnama, wherein date of Nikah of revisionist has been shown as 09.01.1979. The statement of APW 1 Smt Akhtari to the effect that her Nikah was solemnized with revisionist is quite clear and cogent and no such important fact could emerge in her cross-examination so as to affect her credibility. Her version is supported by her brother APW-2 Mohd. Ali. Though her version is denied by revisionist/ OPW-1 Irshad Ali (revisionist) but the over all view of evidence shows that at the time of his Nikah on 09.01.1979 with respondent no. 2, the revisionist was aged about 16 years and thus, the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that at the time of Nikah, revisionist was aged merely 14 years cannot be accepted.

14. Learned court below has made detailed discussion of entire facts and evidence of both the parties and concluded that respondent no. 2 has established that her nikah with revisionist. Learned court below has also referred Section 251 of "Principles of Mahomedan Law" authored by Sri Mulla, wherein it has been stated that a Mohamedan, who is a person of sound mind and attained the age of puberty can enter into contract of marriage. The court below also referred case of Mohd. Idarish vs. State of Bihar (criminal law 764), wherein it has been held that the age for Muslim entering into contract of marriage is 15 years. Section 270 of "Principles of Mohamedan Law" has also been referred, wherein even a minor can enter into the contract of marriage through his guardian.