1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2009 Syed Kafeel Ahmed S/o Sayed Moinoddin.. Applicant Versus Anisabee W/o Syed Kafeel Ahmed .. Respondent Shri H. I. Pathan, Advocate for the Applicant - absent. Shri S. R. Verma, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 22ND OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : . None for the applicant/husband. Shri S. R. Verma, advocate appearing for the respondent/wife is present. (On last occasion I heard the submissions of Shri H. I. Pathan, advocate for the applicant/husband). 2. This revision application is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. E-168/2008 filed by the respondent/wife against the applicant/husband for maintenance U/Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge allowed the application and 2 directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application and to pay Rs. 500/- more towards cost to her. 3. The case of respondent/wife was as under : On 07th February, 2007 the parties got married as per muslim rites and customs. It was the first marriage for the respondent/wife, whereas it was second marriage for the applicant/husband. The applicant/husband was about 60 years old at the time of marriage, whereas the respondent/wife was about 35 to 40 years. The applicant at the time of the marriage was a widower having children from his first wife, who are all major and settled in their life. The respondent/wife says that, after the marriage for some time the applicant/husband treated her well and thereafter he started harassing her for demand of Rs. 50,000/-. She says he assaulted her and issued threats to her. Ultimately she said the applicant/husband drove her out of his house and she came back to her parents' house. She said, she made many attempts to go back to the applicant/husband but in vain. So in February 2008 she said, she lodged a complaint against the applicant/husband before the Women's Redressal Forum which did not prove useful. She said, she is unable to maintain herself, whereas, the applicant/husband is getting Rs. 3 8,000/- per month as pension and he has no liability of any family member. 4. The applicant/husband opposed the application, but denied that he ill-treated the respondent/wife. He alleged that the respondent/wife had married on two occasions earlier and had obtained divorce from previous husbands getting huge amounts in settlement. He said the respondent/wife concealed this fact from him. He said, he was treating the respondent/wife well, but on the contrary he said, the respondent/wife was not behaving properly with him. He said she was raising quarrels and giving mental torture. He said taking advantage of illness and old age, she even assaulted him. He said, the respondent wife demanded from him his immovable property and when he refused to give her the same, she raised quarrel and went away to her parents house. He said, his requests made her to come back for cohabitation proved ineffective. He admitted, the respondent/wife had filed a complaint against him before the Womens Redressal Forum, but he said he did not attend the proceeding before the Forum. He then said that, since the respondent refused to cohabit with him, he pronounced "Talaq" (divorce) in presence of Kazi and accordingly, notices to the respondent on three occasions giving intimation that he has given her divorce. He 4 said, the marriage between them thus, came to an end and the respondent wife is not entitled for any amount of maintenance. He said, even the proceeding is not tenable in view of the provisions of Muslim Woman Protection of Right of Divorce Act 1986. In addition, he stated that, he was getting pension of Rs. 3,000/-. He said he requires Rs. 2,000/- per month on his medicines. He also mentioned that the respondent/wife has sufficient means to maintain herself. 5. The learned Judge of the Trial Court in view of the conflicting pleadings framed certain points for consideration and came to a conclusion that the applicant/husband could not prove that he had lawfully divorced the respondent/wife. In view of this he held that the marriage tie between the parties was still intact. He then recorded his findings that the applicant had neglected and refused to maintain the respondent/wife and she was entitled to maintenance. The learned Judge of the Trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Dagdu Chotu Pathan Vs. Rahimbi Dagdu Pathan and others reported in 2002(3) Mh. L. J. Page 602, to hold that the essential condition precedent for effecting lawful "talaq" are not fulfilled by the applicant/husband. The judgment in the case of Dagadu Chotu Pathan supra specifically mentioned that a 5 "talaq" must be for a reasonable cause and it should be preceded by attempts at reconciliation. The judgment further explained as to what does reconciliation mean: “reconciliation means arbitors one from each side would try to bring about conciliation between husband and wife”. 6. In this case, the applicant/husband did not take such steps of conciliation. He simply stated that he went before the Kazi and pronounced triple "talaq" The learned Judge, thereafter recording cogent reasons, held that the respondent could prove that she was harassed and driven away from the applicants house. The learned Judge then quantified the monthly maintenance payable to the respondent/wife at Rs. 1,000/- per month holding that she was unable to maintain herself. I find nothing illegal, perverse or inappropriate in the impugned judgment and order. The criminal revision application fails. The criminal revision application stands dismissed. [ A. V. NIRGUDE, J.] bsb/Oct. 10/ok