JUDGMENT

Deepak Roshan, J. - This revision application has been filed under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, against the judgment dated 01.08.2014, passed by the learned

2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner herein was married with opposite party no.2 on 08.01.2009 as per muslim customs and rites. After a lapse of 2 months of marriage, the 1st wife of the petitioner started to torture the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner along with his 1st wife created pressure on opposite party no.2 to bring Rs. 50,000/-from her father''s house as dowry. The petitioner along with his 1st wife also assaulted the opposite party no.2 during her pregnancy and they have also tried to administer poison to her. However, the opposite party no.2 has given birth to a male child. Finally on 30.11.2011 the petitioner along with his 1st wife has ousted the opposite party no.2 from their house.

3. Pursuant to that, the opposite party no.2 informed the Mahila Police, Pakur, wherein a case was also registered against the petitioner. At the time of grant of bail the petitioner assured before the court that he will take care of and he will ensure bidai of opposite party no.2 within a month after his release. But after getting bail the petitioner never visited opposite parties, rather gave threatening to kill them. The further case of the opposite party no.1 before the learned trial court was that the petitioner is a man of means. He has % bighas of fertile land and he is also involved in business, whereby he earns about Rs. 10,000/- per month and as such the opposite party no.1 claimed Rs. 1,500/- maintenance each for her and her son from the petitioner.

4. The petitioner herein filed a show-cause before the learned trial court, where he has admitted about the marriage however, he has denied the demand of dowry. He has also admitted that he has no issue from his first wife so he has married opposite party no.2 to get a child. The petitioner further stated before the trial court that the opposite party no.1 was herself not ready to stay with the petitioner. It was also stated by him that he had pronounced ''talaque'' on 21.12.2010 thrice time and as such he has given divorce. He further stated that he is not entitled to pay maintenance as he has already paid the prompt dower of Rs. 1,500/- to her at the time of marriage.

5. There were four witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite parties and all of them supported the case of opposite party no.2. All of them have also supported the demand of dowry. P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are independent witnesses, who have supported the case of opposite party no.2. They have categorically deposed that the petitioner has demanded the dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and upon refusal the petitioner has assaulted the opposite party no.2 and ousted them.

6. The petitioner was also examined before the trial court, he admitted the marriage however, he denied the allegation of torture and finally the appellant has divorced her, for which, he has also filed documentary evidence Ext.A, which is an affidavit to show that the petitioner has divorced the opposite party no.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and said that the petitioner is a poor person and he is suffering from hardship. He further argued that the order of maintenance, passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable as the petitioner has divorced her and given prompt dower of Rs. 1,500/- at the time of her marriage and further the petitioner is ready to pay the amount of maintenance for Iddat period @ Rs. 1,500/- per month and as such the opposite party no.2 is not entitled to get maintenance.

7. I have perused the entire records and evidence available on the record. It is admitted fact that opposite party no.2-Safeda Bibi is the legally wedded wife of petitioner. It is admitted fact that opposite party no.3-Aabed Sheikh is minor son of petitioner and opposite party no.2. It is also admitted fact that petitioner has contracted marri