In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,Hailakandi M.R
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MR 140 of 2017 1 | P a g e IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,HAILAKANDI M.R. CASE NO. 140 of 2017 U/S 125 of CrPC Ms. Ramecha Begum Laskar ……….Petitioner -VS- Mr. Anwar Hussain Mazumder …………..Opposite Party PRESENT : Ms. Al Moohmina Muzzammil, AJS. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi. APPEARANCE: For Petitioner : Mr. Kamrul Islam Choudhury and Mr. Rajib Ahmed Laskar, Learned Advocates. For Opposite Party : Mr. Khalil Uddin Laskar, Learned Advocate. Date of Evidence : 07.08.2018, 02.11.2018, 04.02.2019, 27.05.2019 and 02.07.2019. Date of Argument : 23.07.2019 Date of Final Order : 06.08.2019 FINAL ORDER 1. The instant case for maintenance has arisen out of the petition filed by Ms. Ramecha Begum Laskar (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) u/s 125 Cr.P.C whereby she is seeking a monthly maintenance from the opposite party Mr. Anwar Hussain Mazumder (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite party) from the date of filing of the petition. MR 140 of 2017 2 | P a g e 2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that she was married to the opposite party against on 20.02.2017 against mohar-e-fatimi. Prior to her marriage with opposite party she was married to another person and he has a son out of her first marriage named Imran Hussain who was aged about 8-9 years at the time of filing of the petition. Opposite party was also married earlier to another woman and has four children out of his first marriage. He pronounced talaq upon his first wife and drove her out along with all the children. During marriage with her, opposite party gifted her with three items of gold ornaments and the petitioner kept all her gold ornaments and jejmal in the custody of the opposite party’s widow mother and relatives. After marriage opposite party started demanding money from the Petitioner. On one occasion she asked her mother about demand of Rs. 60,000/- but her mother expressed her inability to fulfil the demand. Opposite party became enraged for the non-fulfilment of his demand and assaulted her brutally to the extent that he almost tried to kill her. She informed his relatives but they did not extend any help. Meanwhile she became pregnant and opposite party tried to administer medicine to abort the child. She resisted him and he assaulted her inhumanly due to his miscarriage was caused. On 13.07.2017 opposite party assaulted her severely and drove out of her matrimonial home keeping all her belongings including clothes and ornaments with him. She took refuge in her parental home and is living in great hardship without any help from the opposite party. 3. Petitioner stated that opposite party is a businessman and has landed property, fishery, betel nut garden, vegetable garden etc. He also shops and godowns given on rent adjacent to Ratanpur road and also cultivation. She stated that opposite party earns about Rs. 3-4 lakhs per month. The expenditure incurred by him on each member of the family is Rs. 8-10,000/-. She stated that she has no source of income. She stays with her widow mother and is in acute financial crisis. She prayed for a monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- from the opposite party per month. 4. Opposite party entered appearance and filed a written statement denying all the averments of the Petitioner. He has vehemently denied the averment relating to MR 140 of 2017 3 | P a g e his marriage with the Petitioner and, therefore, denied all the allegation of demand for money, torture, driving out of the matrimonial home and his responsibility to maintain her. He stated that he was married to his wife Nur Nehar about 20-22 years ago and in April 2017 due to some marital dispute she left her matrimonial home and has gone to her parental home. He tried to bring her back and involved his relatives for persuading her. Meanwhile on 13.07.2017 there was a short circuit in his house due to which the house was burnt in fire. All the documents and household articles were burnt in the fire. Police was informed and fire brigade was called but by the time the fire brigade reached, the house was completely burnt down. A GD Entry has been made vide GDE No. 440 dated 13.07.2017 by the police after information of fire in his house. 5. Opposite party stated that Petitioner is his wife’s close relative and his wife had instigated the Petitioner to file this case against her husband to harass him mentally and financially and that he has no relation with the petitioner whatsoever. He has also denied about his income as stated by the petitioner and submitted that he is a labourer and is leading his life hand to mouth. After burning of his house he has not been able to reconstruct the house. He stated that the Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and has prayed for dismissal of the case. 6. To prove her case, the Petitioner examined Mr. Kamrul Islam Barbhuiya as PW- 1, herself as PW 2 and Mr. Abdul Aziz Mazumdar as PW 3. Opposite party examined himself as DW 1, Mr. Mosaid Ali Choudhury as DW 2 and Mr. Selim Uddin Mazumdar as DW 3. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing case record, I have framed the following: POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the Petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party? and if so, MR 140 of 2017 4 | P a g e 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get maintenance as prayed for and at what rate? DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF: 8. PW 1 Mr. Kamrul Islam Barbhuiya is a Muslim marriage Kazi. He stated that he is empowered to sign the marriage register as marriage Kazi and they maintain register like the present Register no. 491. On 19.02.2017 there is an entry of the marriage of Anwar Hussain Mazumder son of Abdul Wahab Mazumder of Rangauti Part-II and Ramecha Begum of Sayed bond Part-I daughter of of Abdul Musabir Laskar. The marriage was held against mohur-e-fatimi equivalent to 131¼ carat of silver. The marriage was held in the presence of Sahidul, Abdul Basit Laskar, Nurul Islam Mazumder, Selim Uddin Mazumder and vakil was Abdul Ajij Mazumder. In the book no. 491 the serial no. 6016 was executed during the marriage of these parties. The original of the same has been taken by the 2nd party Anwar Hussain Mazumder and the carbon copy is attached to the present book no. 491. Exhibit-1 is the marriage certificate bearing serial no. 6016. Exhibit-1(1) is the signature of Anwar Hussain Mazumder. Exhibit-1(2) is his signature. Exhibit-1(1) was taken by him. Exhibit 1(3), 1(4), 1(5) and 1(6) are signatures of witnesses. Exhibit-1(7) is the signature of vakil. The marriage was conducted in a peaceful manner. Exhibit 1(8) is the signature of Sadar kazi which is known to him. Both the parties were major at the time of marriage. In his cross-examination he stated that Exhibit 1 has been prepared by way of carbon copy except the signatures at the bottom of the page. The original copies of kabin namas are to be kept with the bride. At times the kabin namas are collected by bridegrooms. If parties are known to them then sometimes they give the kabin namas without taking signatures as proof. Exhibit-1 does not contain the signature of receipt of the other copy of the kabin nama. Out of the two pages of each kabin namas the hand written one is the orignal and the other one is carbon copy. He has given the photocopy of the kabin nama to the Petitioner. He has given the photocopies of the kabin nama without any petition. MR 140 of 2017 5 | P a g e If a party is entitled to the kabin nama and losses it, they can provide the party with the photocopy of the same without any petition. He denied that they cannot provide photocopies of kabin namas to the party without any petition under any circumstance. The columns for married/un-married age of the parties have not been filled up in the kabin nama of this case. He does not see the face of the brides at the time of execution of the kabin nama. If anyone who does not provide proper identity approaches for any document, he cannot provide the documents to such a person. In the present form photo of the parties is not affixed. He denied that he has falsely stated that marriage of opposite party Anwar Hussain was conducted by him and that Exhibit-1(1) is not the signature of Anwar Hussain. He stated that the kabin nama is to be kept with the brides and not with the bridegrooms but denied that he cannot provide the original kabin nama to the bridegroom because it is the bridegroom who collects it and gives it to the bride. He has no acquaintance with the bride side of the present case. He denied that he has fabricated Exhibit-1 in connivance with the bride Ramecha Begum and he has given her a photocopy of the same. He denied that he has falsely stated that he has executed the kabin nama and the marriage was conducted between the parties in the presence of witnesses.