Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1622 (BOM)

District Wakf Officer v. Zulakhabee d/o Aminkhan

2014-07-24

V.M.DESHPANDE

body2014
JUDGMENT : By the present petition concurrent findings recorded against the Petitioner No.1 District Wakf Board, Parbhani is questioned. Both the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pathri and the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, who decided Criminal Revision, found that, the petitioner is liable to pay monthly maintenance ofRs.300/- to the respondent no. 1 in view of the Provisions of Section 1 (2) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. I have heard Shri Y.M. Khan learned counsel h/f Mr. K.G. Khader for the petitioner, Shri S.Y. Mundhe learned counsel h/f Mr. M.K. Deshpande for respondent no. 1 and Mrs. Pratibha Bharad, learned APP for the respondent No.2 - State. 2. With the assistance of respective learned counsels I have gone through the impugned judgment and orders. 3. Sum and substance of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, the petitioner was not aware about marriage and divorce between the respondent No.1 and her husband. Further it was contended that the original application was filed against the wrong person namely the District Wakf Officer and therefore, he prayed that Petition be allowed. 4. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1 professes Islam and she is governed by the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. She filed proceeding in the court of learned Magistrate, Pathri under the said Act for maintenance. The said proceeding was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.121/1992. It is claimed in the said proceeding by the respondent no. I that, marital relations of hers with Salim Khan Sattar Khan of Gangakhed has come to an end due to divorce and as such she is divorcee. She submitted that initially an application bearing No.96/1986 was filed against her husband for maintenance and the maintenance was granted in her favour @ Rs.100/- p. m. and Rs.50/- for her daughter. However, said order granting maintenance was questioned by her husband by filing Revision Application no.16/1989. The learned Revisional Court accepted the contention of her husband in the said proceeding that she being divorced wife, she is not entitled the maintenance, and therefore, the revision, was allowed and order of maintenance was revoked. Till the said order was revoked she is getting the maintenance. It is also asserted that her status still is a divorcee. There is no person to look after her and to maintain her. Till the said order was revoked she is getting the maintenance. It is also asserted that her status still is a divorcee. There is no person to look after her and to maintain her. Her father Amin Khan aged about 85 years and mother Sugrabi being 75 years are unable to maintain her. She also asserted that there is no source of income to her and therefore she claimed maintenance @ Rs.800/ - against the petitioner board. 5. On being summoned the petitioner Board submitted written statement. Sum and substance of the written statement is that, board is not aware about marriage and divorce between the respondent no. 1 and her husband. It was asserted that respondent no. 1 is having sufficient means to maintain herself. 6. During the trial certified copy of the order of Criminal Revision No.16/1989 was filed on record, which clearly shows that the respondent no.1 is a divorcee. The Board though stated that it is not aware about relations between respondent no.1 and her husband, the evidence of Abdul Wahid PW2 and Amin Khan PW 3 has positively stated about the status of the respondent no. 1 as divorcee. Therefore, hath the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that the respondent no. 1 is a divorcee. I see no reason to disagree with the said finding. 7. The Respondent No.1 has specifically stated in her evidence that she has no source of income. Her parent’s are very old. Though a feeble attempt was made by the board by producing a copy of the voters list Exh.26 to show that the respondent no.1 is residing with her parents and brothers, there is no evidence to show that the names appearing in the voters list arc her brothers. There is no positive evidence or even suggestions to the respondent no. 1 that she is residing along with her brother. 8. The Courts below in my view has correctly reached to the conclusion that she is entitled to receive the maintenance. The quantum is also meager. Since there is no perversity appearing in any of the orders impugned before this Court. I see no reason to interfere with such concurrent finding of fact. Hence. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed.