IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.607 of 2008 RIYAZUDDIN Versus NOORJAHAN @ NOORI ----------- 2 12.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the husband petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the plea of the petitioner as against the impugned order granting maintenance to his wife opposite party to be impossible in law on the ground that both the petitioner and the opposite party being governed by Muslim Law and were bound by terms of subsisting divorce must be and is hereby rejected in view of a clear finding of fact recorded by the Court that there was no proof of such divorce which was substantiated either from any document or any other evidence. The Court below under such circumstance had rightly arrived to a conclusion that there was no order of any appropriate Court to substantiate the plea of subsisting divorce as taken by the petitioner. It was in this background that the Court below having found the marriage to be admitted and two issues from such marriage to be also beyond the pale of dispute, proceeded to award the amount of maintenance for the wife and the children for a sum of Rs. 1200/- per month which again cannot be said to be either illegal 2 or excessive. It has to be noted that when this Court had afforded an opportunity to the Counsel for the petitioner to produce any document to show that there was a subsisting divorce, the Counsel for the petitioner came out with a document which being in Urdu Script, on request of the Court was read by Mr. Kamran an Advocate. Such documents also does not prove the factum of divorce and is only some sort of understanding of the petitioner along following an alleged fact of divorce in the form of some earlier verdict of Maulvi. What has been actually produced by the counsel for the petitioner is an alleged declaration of the petitioner intimating that on 3.11.2006 by a letter had communicating his intention to divorce the opposite party. Sanctity of such divorce even in Islamic Law is absolutely unknown and therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he had already divorced the opposite party is only to be noticed for its being rejected. That being so, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated 8.2.2008 awarding maintenance of Rs. 1200/- per month to the opposite party. Accordingly, this civil revision application, 3 being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with a direction to the petitioner pay the arrear and current amount of maintenance as directed by the Court below in the impugned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)