IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.1299 of 2018

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-

======================================================

Md. Iliyas, Son of Md. Usman, resident of village- Magurjan, P.S. Bahara

Kothi, District- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

Amina Khatoon, wife of Md. Iliyas, Daughter of Late Bijal Mohamed,

resident of village- Magurjan, P.s. Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea.

... ... Opposite Party

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal,APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

2

28-11-2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

Petitioner, in this case, is aggrieved by and

dissatisfied with the order dated 23.08.2018 passed in

Maintenance Case No. 330 of 2012 by the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Purnea.

By the impugned order the learned Family Court has

allowed a maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the

applicant- wife by her husband who is petitioner before this

Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an

argument saying that at the time of the alleged Nikah, the age of

the applicant was only ten years, therefore, the marriage cannot

be said to be a valid marriage and the petitioner would not be

liable to maintain the applicant- wife. Learned counsel has

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1299 of 2018(2) dt.28-11-2022

2/5

further submitted that on the Nikahnama, the name of the

witnesses are not duly mentioned.

The another point raised on behalf of the petitioner is

on the quantum of income of the petitioner. It is stated that the

petitioner was working as a driver at Delhi and at the relevant

time, his monthly income was Rs. 6,000/- per month. Under

these circumstances award of maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- is

excessive.

This Court has gone through the materials available

on the record. The copy of the deposition of the witnesses have

also been produced before this Court. On perusal of the

deposition of the applicant, it appears that according to her the

Nikah took place on 26.03.1990. It is alleged that after her

Nikah when she went to her sasural, she was being tortured by

her husband and in-laws. After sometime, her father brought her

to his place and thereafter the husband- petitioner left for

Punjab. She has made certain allegations against her in-laws

which are not necessary to be taken note of in the present

proceeding.

The applicant has deposed that for last about three and

half years, her husband was engaged in the business of running

of vehicles in Delhi but recently he had sold the vehicles and

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1299 of 2018(2) dt.28-11-2022

3/5

had indulged in the business of sale and purchase of food grains

in Purnea. He had purchased two Bighas of land and from the

business he earns around Rs. 40,000/- per month. The applicant

alleged that her husband was not giving her any maintenance

and she is being neglected. She was cross-examined by the

opposite party and in her cross-examination also she reiterated

that her Nikah was performed by Maulvi and a Nikahnama was

prepared. She asserted that her Nikahnama has been placed on

record of this case. She was suggested by the opposite party that

she had left her husband’s place after quarrel and she does not

like. The applicant denied this suggestion. She denied another

suggestion of the opposite party that her claim is wrong. Further

in response to the question put to her that why did she not want

to stay with her husband, she categorically answered that now

she cannot live with the opposite party because he has got five

children from his second marriage.

The case of the applicant has been supported by three

other witnesses and the applicant witness no. 4 is the Maulvi

who has st