Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 5 (JHR)

Alimmuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 2, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 2014 by which application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- to opposite party no. 2. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that opposite party no. 2 was already divorced by the petitioner and on account of the same, 56½ decimals of lands has been transferred to the opposite party no. 2. He further submitted that petitioner is a Moasim (Muazzim) in a Mosque and earns an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month. It has also been submitted that from the share in the property, the petitioner does not earns much and which fact has not been considered by the learned trial court. He further submits that the petitioner solemnised another marriage from which it can be deduced that the petitioner has already divorced the opposite party no. 2. 4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. The main plank of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has given Talaque to the opposite party no. 2, but as would appear no formal proof of Talaque was produced-before the learned trial court which would substantiate the said plea. It further appears that the daughter of the petitioner i.e., OPW 5 namely, Tabassum Parveen has disclosed in the cross-examination that her grand father has sufficient agricultural land and the petitioner also has some share in the land. Apart from the such income, the petitioner also works as a Moasim in a Mosque. The registered sale deed also does not disclose that only on account of settlement of divorce, 56½ decimals of land has been transferred to the opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner. The entire facets of the case would go to show that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had given Talaque to the opposite party no. 2 which has been properly considered by the learned trial court. 2 by the petitioner. The entire facets of the case would go to show that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had given Talaque to the opposite party no. 2 which has been properly considered by the learned trial court. Apart from the above facts, considering the income of the petitioner, the trial court has allowed maintenance for a paltry sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the opposite party no. 2. 6. In absence of any illegality in the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 2014, this application fails and the same is hereby dismissed.