RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 110 of 1997 in the Family Court, Hyderabad against the defendant-respondent herein with the following averments. It is stated by the plaintiff that she was married to late Abdul Aleem Khan on 26-9-1960 as per Muslims rites and customs. A sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 was fixed as Meher. They were blessed with a female child named Ahmedi Begum. They spent a period of one year of happy married life and thereafter her deceased husband started ill-treating and torturing her and necked her out with her daughter. Since then she was residing with her parents and depending on them. ( 2 ) IT is further stated by the plaintiff that she filed Maintenance Case No. 75 of 1975 before the- 111 Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad claiming maintenance for her daughter. The learned Magistrate awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per month from February 1976. It is further averred by her that she also filed M. C. No. 76 of 1982 before the 12th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad claiming maintenance for herself. The learned Magistrate granted Rs. 200. 00 per month. Her deceased husband initially sent a sum of Rs. 100. 00 and arrears of Rs. 25. 00 for sometime and thereafter he sent Rs. 175/-per month. This arrangement continued till his death i. e. , on 8-9-1996. ( 3 ) IT is the further case of the plaintiff that her deceased husband married the defendant and started living with her at Malakpet. After the death of her husband, she participated in all funeral ceremonies. She also made a representation to the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "a. P. P. S. C") to settle the service benefits of her deceased husband. The defendant also sent such an application to the Secretary, A. P. P. S. C. The Secretary A. P. P. S. C. appointed an Enquiry Officer and directed her to appear before him on 23-11-1996. He conducted the enquiry and submitted his report. In the enquiry the plaintiff produced the original marriage certificate, but the Secretary, A. P. P. S. C. did not pass any appropriate order. He conducted the enquiry and submitted his report. In the enquiry the plaintiff produced the original marriage certificate, but the Secretary, A. P. P. S. C. did not pass any appropriate order. Hence she was constrained to issue a notice to the Secretary, A. P. P. S. C. The demand made in the notice was not complied with by the A. P. P. S. C. Therefore, she was constrained to file the aforesaid suit for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late Abdul Aleem Khan and she is entitled for the terminal and pensionary benefits. She also filed an application restraining the defendant-respondent herein from claiming any benefits from the A. P. P. S. C. ( 4 ) ON filing the suit, summons were issued to the defendant-respondent herein. On appearance the defendant-respondent herein filed her written statement. It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff was married to late Abdul Aleem Khan in the year 1960. They were blessed with a female child. Thereafter, due to differences, plaintiff herself obtained "khula" from her husband. The said fact has been admitted by her in M. C. No. 75 of 1975 and M. C. No. 76 of 1982. Therefore, it was contended that the divorced woman under Muslim Law is not entitled for maintenance. ( 5 ) IT is the further case of the defendant that she married late Abdul Aleem Khan as per Muslim Rites. She denied that her husband paid any maintenance to her. He has also given "talak" by executing an affidavit on 22-8-1996 and also intimated about the divorce to the plaintiff. Hence, it was prayed that she is the only legally wedded wife of late Abdul Aleem Khan and therefore prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed with costs. ( 6 ) ON the strength of the pleadings, the learned judge framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration that she is legally wedded wife of late Abdul Aleem Khan and if so whether she is entitled for the terminal and pensionary benefits of the deceased husband? (2) Whether the plaintiff divorced the deceased and she cannot claim the benefits of her husband as a legally wedded wife as contended by the defendant? (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for Injunction as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff divorced the deceased and she cannot claim the benefits of her husband as a legally wedded wife as contended by the defendant? (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for Injunction as prayed for? ( 7 ) IT further appears from the record that on behalf of the plaintiff, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. Certain documents filed and proved by her were marked as Exs. A-1 to A-40. On behalf of the defendants, D. Ws. l and 2 were examined and the documents filed and proved by her were marked as Exs. B-1 to B-4. ( 8 ) PLAINTIFF examined herself as P. W. I and she examined one Ahmed Begum as P. W. 2. The defendant examined herself as D. W. I and she examined one Lateeq Ahmed Khan as D. W. 2. ( 9 ) IN this case the point is to be decided as to whether the plaintiff obtained "khula" divorce from her late husband as pleaded by the defendant? ( 10 ) IT can be seen that the defendant based her claim that the plaintiff obtained "khula" divorce from late Abdul Aleem Khan. Reliance was placed by the defendant on two documents; mainly certified copy of the order in M. C. No. 76 of 1982 which was produced by the plaintiff and marked as Ex. A-2 and second reliance was kept by the defendant on the certified copy of the order in M. C. N0. 75 of 1975, which is marked as Ex. B-1. ( 11 ) THE plaintiff also relied upon Exs. A-3 to A-27. These are the money order slips. With these slips the plaintiff claimed that her deceased husband was sending the maintenance amount per month regularly. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel Mr. M. A. Bari appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant herein submitted at the Bar that the learned Judge wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that some attempts (sic averments ) made extra in both the Maintenance cases are not the admissions in law and therefore they cannot be believed. It was contended by the learned Counsel Mr. M. A. Bari that while filing both the Maintenance cases she stated that she is the divorced wife of late Mr. Abdul Aleem Khan. It was contended by the learned Counsel Mr. M. A. Bari that while filing both the Maintenance cases she stated that she is the divorced wife of late Mr. Abdul Aleem Khan. That fact by itself will not prove that the plaintiff had obtained "khula" divorce from her husband and the said fact cannot be taken as an admission. ( 13 ) IT can be seen from the above referred exhibits, Ex. A-2 and Ex. B-1 in which the plaintiff had described in the description of parties as "smt, Mallika Begum D/o Khader Khan" but in the body of the pleadings in the Maintenance Cases she stated that her marriage with Abdul Aleem Khan was dissolved. But that is not correct position of law. The learned Counsel Mr. Bari submitted that Section 17 of the Evidence Act defines "admission" as under:"17. Admission defined:--an admission is a statement, oral or documentary (or contained in electronic form), which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned. "but under the Note, the said section reads as under:"an admission is substantive evidence, though it is open to the person who made the admission to show that the fact admitted is not correct. "the learned Counsel further submitted that though inadvertently the plaintiff mentioned that she was a divorced wife of late Abdul Aleem Khan, the plaintiff can show all other evidence that the statement is not correct. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel that the admission must be in respect of any fact in issue. Then it can only be called as an admission and not otherwise. We are in agreement, with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant herein that though the plaintiff described herself as a divorced wife of late Abdul Aleem Khan in Maintenance Cases, which was not a fact in issue in the maintenance cases. Therefore, it cannot be said to be an admission as defined under Section 17 of the Evidence Act. ( 14 ) APART from the above legal position, Section 20 of the Evidence Act will come to the help of the plaintiff, which reads as under:"20. Therefore, it cannot be said to be an admission as defined under Section 17 of the Evidence Act. ( 14 ) APART from the above legal position, Section 20 of the Evidence Act will come to the help of the plaintiff, which reads as under:"20. Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit :--Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions. " ( 15 ) ADMITTEDLY in the maintenance cases filed by the plaintiff, the defendant was not a party and therefore it cannot be taken as an admission and therefore the contention raised by the defendant that the plaintiff s admission that she is a divorced wife of late Abdul Aleem Khan cannot be made use of by the defendant. This is as far as the legal position is concerned. ( 16 ) ON factual position also the plaintiff has a right to establish the fact that the so-called admission is not correct. It has been established by the plaintiff by producing the money order slips Exs. A-3 to A-27. With these slips, the plaintiff could prove that her deceased husband was sending money orders by way of maintenance as per the order of the Magistrate. ( 17 ) IF at all the case of the defendant is to be accepted that at the instance of the plaintiff, late Abdul Aleem Khan divorced the plaintiff, in that event the deceased Abdul Aleem Khan would not have sent the monthly maintenance to the plaintiff and her child. ( 18 ) ONE more fact is borne out of the record that few days prior to the death of Abdul Aleem Khan, he pronounced the divorce in the presence of the witnesses and an affidavit was sworn by him. But the affidavit is in the Urdu language, which is marked as Ex. B-3 and the translation in English is marked as Ex. B~4. If late Abdul Aleem Khan had already divorced the plaintiff by way of Talak, then there was no reason for him to execute Talaknama for the second time. It means that the deceased himself was aware that the marriage tie between him and the plaintiff subsisted and therefore he wanted to put an end to such relationship and therefore he had pronounced talak . The Talaknama deed Ex. It means that the deceased himself was aware that the marriage tie between him and the plaintiff subsisted and therefore he wanted to put an end to such relationship and therefore he had pronounced talak . The Talaknama deed Ex. B-3 has to be taken as an authenticated document. It is produced by the defendant herself. Therefore, till the pronouncement of Talak, the marriage tie between the plaintiff and the deceased Abdul Aleem Khan is subsisted. ( 19 ) NOW we have to consider what is the effect of "talak" in the present set of facts. It is an admitted fact that after pronouncement of "talak", the deceased died within 16 days of executing the "talaknama". It means that the plaintiff had not completed the "iddat period". The learned Counsel draw our attention to the legal position, which states as follows:"a man pronounces an irrevocable Talak, or three Talaks in death or illness and dies while wife is in her iddat period for divorce. She inherits from him under Hanafi and Shine law"in the present case, there is no doubt that the parties to the litigation belong to Sunni Community of Muslims. The plaintiff had not completed her period of "iddat" before the death of her husband. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to the terminal benefits of her husband along with the defendant, who is also the legally wedded wife of the deceased Abdul Aleem Khan. ( 20 ) THEREFORE, this Court set aside the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 110 of 1997 by the Family Court judge and decree the suit of the plaintiff directing the Secretary, A. P. P. S. C. to give the terminal and pensionary benefits to the plaintiff and the defendant equally. ( 21 ) IN the result, the Appeal is allowed. Under the circumstances described above, there will be no order as to costs.