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 . At times the kabin namas are collected by . 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 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 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. He has not brought any document along with him to show that he is a kazi. This kabin nama is registered under All Assam Imam Council, Guwahati which is registered under society Indian Registration Act. He denied that book no. 491 is a false book prepared by him.

9. PW 2 Petitioner Ms. Ramecha Begum Laskar stated that she filed the case against her husband/2nd party Anowar Hussain Mazumder. She was married to him in the year 2017 socially against mohur-e-fatimi. Kabin nama which is Exhibit-1 has been executed during marriage and the same is signed by her and the opposite party. After marriage, opposite party expressed his dissatisfaction with the gift articles and demanded money. He demanded Rs. 60,000/- from her parental home but they could not fulfil his demand and hence he started torturing her. She complained against him to his family members and relatives but no one responded. During that period, she conceived a child. Opposite party forcefully administered medicine and caused abortion of a 3 month old child. On 13.07.2017 he party assaulted her severely and drove her out of her matrimonial home. She

MR 140 of 2017 6 | P a g e

filed a case u/s 498 (A) of IPC in Police Station. Since then she has been at her paternal home. Opposite party never enquired about her or paid any maintenance to her. She has no source of income. He has businesses such as 5 rented shops, godown, betel nut business and timber business and earns Rs. 3 lakh to Rs. 4 lakh from all these. She has prayed for monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month.

In her cross-examination she stated that the marriage was conducted in her house. She cannot say where the kabin nama was prepared. She stated that Kabin namas normally remain in the custody of wives but she did not have the original kabin nama as the same was taken by the opposite party. She has not filed any case for recovery of kabin nama but she has sent legal notice for returning the same. Legal notice has not been filed with the present case as it is with kazi. She was once married prior to her marriage with the opposite party. She cannot say the date of causing abortion. She has not filed any case for causing her abortion. She has heard that the house of opposite party got burnt on 13.07.2017. The Kabin nama was not filed at the time of filing of the petition. She comes to know about the Kabin nama from the person who were present at the time of execution of the same. She has received the copy of the Kabin nama after giving notice to the Kazi. She has not filed the copy of the notice sent to Kazi for providing her the copy of the Kabin nama. Her signature was not obtained while providing her the copy of Kabin nama. Kazi’s name is Kamrul Islam. She denied that Kazi Kamrul Islam is her relative and she has prepared the Kabin nama in connivance with him. She has mentioned in her petition that the Kabin nama was taken by the opposite party to enlist her name in the voter list. She was read over the petition after being written. She denied that she not mentioned in the petition that Kabin nama was taken from her by opposite party. She has not filed any document to show the property, business or income of the opposite party. She does not know the name of opposite party’s first wife. She has heard that the first wife resides at Bishnughar. She denied that she is related to opposite party’s first wife. She denied that the first wife of opposite party had a dispute with him and so, she has filed this case on her behalf in order to harass opposite party. She denied that on 13.07.2017 the house of opposite party completely burnt down and taking the opportunity, she has filed this case as she will get relief from furnishing

MR 140 of 2017 7 | P a g e

documents on the pretext that the same as has been destroyed in fire.

10. PW 3 Mr. Abdul Aziz Mazumdar stated that Exhibit -1 is the kabin nama of the marriage between Ramecha Begum and Anwar Hussain Mazumder. Exhibit- 1(7) is his signature as Vakil of the marriage. All the other signatures in Exhibit-1 were put in her presence.

In his cross-examination he stated that he is not imam of any Masjid. His house is at Bilpar Dhumkar. Ramecha Begum is not related to him. Opposite party is his neighbour and he resides at Rangauti. He does not know the signature of Nur Islam. He knows Selim Uddin. He does not know Abdul Basit. The portion on which the signature exhibited as Exhibit-1(7) is put is a photocopy. He heard that the house of the petitioner is at Sayedbond. He never visited her house. He was not present when the marriage proposal was read out to the petitioner. He was not given any written invitation for attending the marriage. He denied that no marriage between the petitioner and respondent had taken place and that he is related to the petitioner and on her request he signed in Exhibit-1.

11. DW 1 Opposite Party Mr. Anwar Hssain Mazumdar stated that his wife’s name is Nur Nehar Mazumder. He was married to her about 20-22 years ago. Four children were born out of the wedlock. Due to some matrimonial dispute his wife along with his children left matrimonial home and went to her paternal home. He denied that the petitioner is his wife and stated that in the year 2017 there was a fire in his house in which all articles present in the home were completely burnt. This case was filed after the fire. He suspects that his wife had instigated the petitioner to file this case in order to harass him. He stated that the averment of the petitioner that she was married to him on 20.02.2017, his demand for dowry and torture upon her, her pregnancy and causing of miscarriage by him and on 13.07.2017 driving her out after torturing her are all false and concocted. He does not have godowns, rented house and yearly income of Rs. 3-4 lakhs as stated by the petitioner. Exhibit-1 does not contain his signature. P.W-1 Kamrul Islam Barbhuiya is not any imam of their mohalla. He does not know any Abdul Aziz Mazumder.

MR 140 of 2017 8 | P a g e

In his cross-examination he stated that he not filed any case against the petitioner Ramecha Begum to assert that she is not his wife or against the vakil or witnesses of Exhibit-1, Kabin nama. He denied that Ext-1(1) is his signature. His father was a renowned doctor. They are 5 brothers and sisters. He stay in Rangauti Part-III and his brothers stay in Hailakandi Ward no-XI. There are no case between him and his brothers and sisters. He will not adduce any other witness apart from witness Mosaid Ali Choudhury present today. He is a distant relation. His maternal uncle Moti Choudhury was a renowned person of the district and all his sons are established. His brother Faruk Ahmed works as an advocate’s clerk. He does not visit his wife’s paternal home to visit his children but his children visit him. His children are not witnesses in his case. He has given talaq to his wife Nur Nehar Mazumder but denied that he has given talaq without proper reason. A criminal case filed by the petitioner for cruelty is pending before this court. He has not submitted any document to the police to prove that petitioner is not his wife. He cannot say if petitioner filed any case under section 107 Cr.P.C against him. He denied that a case u/s 107 Cr.P.C is pending against him filed by the petitioner vide non FIR number 21/19 with report dated 26.02.2019. He has not filed any FIR for the fire that took place in his house. He has divorced from his wife about 4-5 years ago. She has not filed case for maintenance or moharana against him as the same were paid at the time of divorce. His sons stay mostly with their mother. One of his sons is an engineer and other one is a student. He denied that his statement about his suspicion that his ex-wife has instigated the petitioner to file this case is false. He had never met with the petitioner during that 20-21 years of his married life with his divorced wife. He denied that he has rented houses and properties within the town and earn also as a contractor. He is a cultivator. His property is at Rangauti, Churbul area etc. He stays alone. He denied that he has socially married the petitioner vide kabin nama and lived with her and had demanded dowry and driven her out after assaulting and torturing her. He denied that he has married the petitioner in the presence of his relatives and others.

12. DW 2 Mr. Mosaid Ali Choudhury stated that opposite party Anwar Hussain Laskar is his neighbour. They belong to different families. Opposite

MR 140 of 2017 9 | P a g e

party’s wife had left him over an altercation about 4-5 years ago. He has two sons and one married daughter but he cannot say if he has any other daughter. About 18 months ago, his house was burnt in a fire. Opposite party was not present when the fire took place. He did not marry after his divorce with his wife. Opposite party’s house is on the west of his house with two houses in between. Opposite party has 4-5 rented shops and cultivating land.

In his cross-examination he stated that he has cultivation which is done with the help of labourers. Opposite party has property which he enjoys solely. They have visiting terms. He denied that he has friendly relation with the opposite party and hence, he is deposing falsely today for his sake. He denied that opposite party married the petitioner and he is concealing the fact with full knowledge. On the east of opposite party’s house is the house of Abdul Rahman Choudhury. He does not know the number of family members in his house. On the west of his house is his brother kazi Joloi Mazumder. I cannot say his family members. On the north of opposite party’s house is the PWD road and on the north of the road there are 2-3 families. On the south of the opposite party’s house is Dholoi Mazumder. He cannot say the number of family members in Dholoi Mazumder’s house. He has not visited these neighbours for the last one year. Opposite party is not of his age group. His family members do not visit the opposite party. He cannot say anything about the petitioner’s statement that opposite party prints money. He cannot say which neighbours visit the opposite party except for him. He is not related to the opposite party. He was not a part of the baraat of opposite party’s marriage. He denied that he went to the house of petitioner along with opposite party to threaten her to withdraw this case and, therefore, she has filed a case under section 107 Cr.P.C in which he is a party. He and opposite party do not remain in each other’s company all the time. He does not know about all the whereabouts of opposite party. He has not attended opposite party’s daughter’s marriage held recently. He does not know whether the kabin nama of opposite party’s marriage with the divorced wife was executed as he was not present in the marriage. He cannot say if opposite party was divorced from his wife and also how and why his wife left his house. He was present when opposite party’s house was burning. He did not try to extinguish fire. Fire brigade

MR 140 of 2017 10 | P a g e was called. He denied that he has deposed falsely today on the instigation of opposite party.

13. DW 3 Mr. Selim Uddin Mazumdar stated that the petitioner is his niece. Her mother is his cousin. He knows the opposite party Anwar Hussain. He stated that he had earlier received notice from court and appeared but his evidence was not recorded. Petitioner was married thrice. He was present in the first marriage. He does not know if she was married to Anwar Hussain. Exhibit-1(6) is not his signature. He has not signed any kabin nama between these parties.

In his cross-examination he stated that he has not received any notice for coming to court on that day. He was asked by a mohri to appear before the court. He does not know the name or address of the mohri. He does not know if he is a mohri of the opposite party. He had received notice twice and appeared before court thrice on behalf of the petitioner. He has not met with any of the parties on those three dates. Hazira was written by Bablu mohri. He cannot say if Bablu mohri is an advocate clerk of opposite party’s learned engaged counsel. He has not visited the petitioner after receiving notice from her. He did not enquire about the case in which he received notice. Petitioner has a son from her earlier marriage but he does not know from which marriage the son was born. He had visited the house of petitioner during her first marriage. He has never enquired about her after that. Her father was not alive during her first marriage. They were vakils in her . He knows opposite party since last 10 years. His house is at Purbasunapur and opposite party’s house is on the way to his house. He has acquaintance with him and they have cordial relation. He has not attended the other marriages of petitioner Ramecha after her first marriage. He can sign both in English and Bangla. He knows Soidul contractor. The Kazi of their area is the kazi of Rangauti and Mohanpur. He does not know the name of the kazis. He denied that Exhibit-1(6) is his signature. Petitioner’s house is at Sayedbond and house of opposite party is at Rangauti. He denied that he was present in the marriage between petitioner and the opposite party. He denied that he has very good relation with opposite party and he has deposed falsely due to his relation. He denied that he has appeared before court for illegal gain. He does not know if

MR 140 of 2017 11 | P a g e any petition has been filed by the petitioner on 22.04.2019 stating that he had been gain over by the opposite party and that the petition was allowed. Kazis are produced by the husband side in Muslim marriages.

14. This was the evidence adduced by the parties. Petitioner has stated that she was married to the opposite party and she has brought the kazis of the marriage to prove her marriage. Opposite party, on the other hand, has completely denied any marriage with the petitioner. He has stated that he strongly suspects his divorced wife Nur Nehar Mazumdar to have planted the petitioner in order to harass him. PW 1 is the kazi of the case and has stated that he has executed the kabin nama in the capacity of a kazi. He has exhibited all the signatures in the kabin nama. PW 3 is the vakil of the marriage and has also identified the kabin nama and his signature at Exhibit 1 (7). Opposite party has cross-examined the kazi thoroughly as to his capacity to execute the kabin nama. The kabin nama exhibited as Exhibit 1 is a carbon copy with original signatures at the bottom of the page and the petitioner has stated that the original kabin nama was taken by the opposite party and he has not returned the same despite sending him legal notice. Opposite party has vehemently denied the kabin nama and suggested that it has been prepared by the petitioner in connivance with the kazi. KaziMr. Kamrul Islam Barbhuiya had stated that he had not seen the face of the petitioner during marriage nor there is any photograph of the parties in the kabin nama but he had given her the photocopy of the same, when the petitioner approached him. Learned counsel for the opposite party expressed his surprise as to how the kazi could recognise her identity when he had never seen her or even her photograph and he suggested that the kazi is a relative of the petitioner and has prepared a false kabin nama in connivance with the petitioner. He cross-examined the kazi upon his capacity to execute kabin nama and cited the direction of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in All Muslim Marriages and Divorces Registrars and Kazi Association and others Vs Kamrul Islam Laskar and othersWP (C) 5122/2009 wherein Hon’ble High Court had given a finding that Section 3 of the Assam Moslem Marriages and Divorces Registration Act, 1935 provides that it is only the licensed persons who are authorised to register marriages and issue certificates to that effect. It is stated that the “unlicensed persons may devise their own methods of registration

MR 140 of 2017 12 | P a g e and issuing certificates unknown to law and thus not accountable under the law”. The direction was passed against all the respondent kazis including PW 1 of this case.

15. The argument of the opposite party mainly revolved around the authenticity of the kabin nama. Whereas an authentic kabin nama is an integral part of Muslim marriages, but the question here is whether the authenticity or otherwise of the kabin nama will obliterate or not the marriage between the parties for the purpose of deciding a petition under section 125 CrPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again re-iterated that for deciding a petition under section 125 CrPC, all that the court needs to see is whether there is any prima facie proof of marriage between the parties. In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit 1999 (7) SCC 675Hon’ble Court has stated that a strict proof of marriage is not necessary to decide the claim of the petitioner. This position has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Biswanath Sarkar vs Smt. Swapna Dey (2006) 3 GLR 859. Further, in Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla Suri Demedu & Anr, (2011) 12 SCC 189, while discussing the proof required in a maintenance proceeding, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a presumption that the applicant was the wife of the respondent would suffice for granting of an order for maintenance. Among the recent judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr (2011) 1 SCC 141 while taking into consideration the evolution of a relationship between a man and a woman has observed that long cohabitation without a valid marriage can be presumed to be marriage for the purpose of Section 125 CrPC. In Indra Sarma Vs V.K.V Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755 Hon’ble Court has even gone further and observed that a women in a relationship in the nature of marriage with a man is entitled to maintenance if the relationship has some essential characteristics of marriage though not a marriage legally recognised.

16. In the light of the above discussion it can be concluded that the proof regarding marriage between the parties in this case is not dependent on the capacity of the kazi to execute the kabin nama. Here the degree of responsibility upon the petitioner is much less than any other proceeding and it is to be seen

MR 140 of 2017 13 | P a g e whether the opposite party has been able to dispel the claim of the petitioner that she is his wife. PW 1 and 3 have denied that they have any relation with the petitioner and have stated that they were the kazi and the vakil of the marriage respectively and have signed the kabin nama. Opposite party, on the other hand, denied the marriage point blank. He stated that his house was run down by fire in the year 2017 and suspects that his first wife has planted the petitioner to harass him and she has chosen 13.07.2017 as the date of being driven out because on that day the house of opposite party was completely burnt down by fire and by choosing the same date, she would be relieved from furnishing documents on the pretext that the same as has been destroyed by fire. However, it is seen that petitioner has not taken any such plea in her petition or in her evidence. Opposite party adduced two witnesses except for himself and both are not related to him. DW 2 is a neighbour and he has denied the marriage between the parties. DW 3, on the other hand, is a relation of the petitioner and has denied any knowledge of marriage between the parties. DW 2 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and he has appeared to be ignorant whether opposite party had divorced his first wife and why she had left the house. He does not have a fair knowledge about the opposite party’s family life and yet he has confirmed that opposite party has never married the petitioner. DW 2 appears to be an overzealous witness and, therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon his evidence. DW 3 is related to the petitioner but he has appeared on behalf of the opposite party. His relation with the petitioner appears to be constrained and therefore his credibility is also doubtful. Overall the evidence adduced by the Petitioner is more independent and less over enthusiastic. Opposite party’s aversion that the petitioner has been planted by his first wife to harass him is a far- fetched suggestion and does not sufficiently counter the claim of the petitioner that she is his wife. It may also be mentioned here that in the criminal case filed by the petitioner under section 498A of IPC, charge-sheet has been filed against the opposite party by the police. Hence, a prima facie proof of the relationship between the petitioner and opposite party as husband and wife does exist. In my opinion the evidence found in favour of the petitioner as to her claim of being the wife of opposite party is sufficient to allow the present petition. Hence, the petition stands allowed.

MR 140 of 2017 14 | P a g e

17. Regarding quantum of maintenance, petitioner has stated that opposite party is a businessman and has landed property, fishery, betel nut garden, vegetable garden etc. He also has 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 and stays with her widow mother and is in acute financial crisis. On the other hand opposite party has stated in his written statement that he is a labourer and earns very meagre due to which he has not been able to reconstruct his burnt house. He stated in his evidence that he is a cultivator and has landed property at Rangauti, Churbul area etc.

18. The essence of the provision under section 125 Cr.P.C is to protect the women from vagrancy and destitution. Hence, the petitioner should be allowed a reasonable maintenance to ensure that the opposite party fulfils his responsibility to maintain his wife at least decently, if not lavishly. Therefore, keeping in view the status of the parties, a monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) is directed to be paid by the opposite party Mr. Anwar Hussain Mazumder to the petitioner Ms. Ramecha Begum Laskar every month with effect from the date of this judgment and order.

Given in my hand and under the seal of this court on this 6th day of August, 2019.

(Ms. Al Moohmina Muzzammil) Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi

MR 140 of 2017 15 | P a g e

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S WITNESSES:

PW 1, Mr. Kamrul Islam Barbhuiya PW 2, Petitioner Ms. Ramecha Begum Laskar PW 3, Mr. Abdul Aziz Mazumdar

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1- Kabin nama

OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESSES

DW 1, Opposite Party Mr. Anwar Hssain Mazumder DW 2, Mr. Mosaid Ali Choudhury DW 3 Mr. Selim Uddin Mazumdar

(Ms. Al Moohmina Muzzammil) Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi.