Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 965 (JHR)

Anishul Fatima @ Aaisha Khatoon v. Bakridan Nisha

2017-06-20

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mokhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 25.09.2001 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 30 of 1998, whereby and Where under direction has been given for continuation of payment of Rs. 700/- as monthly maintenance allowance to the opposite party no. 1 even after the death of the original opposite party on 05.11.1999. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the legally married wife of Abdul Rehman (since deceased) and therefore she was entitled to the entire amount which is paid by M/s TISCO Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the opposite party no. 1 was given talak by Abdul Rehman and Dain Mehar was also given to her and in such circumstances therefore the learned court below has committed an error in directing continuation of making payment of maintenance of Rs. 700/- per month. 4. On the other hand Mr. Mokhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the order of maintenance which had already been granted by the learned court below. It has been submitted that the petitioner herself receives an amount of Rs. 4766/- from M/s TISCO Limited as a nominee of late Abdul Rehman and therefore no error or illegality has been committed by the learned court below in passing the impugned order dated 25.09.2001. 5. It appears that the opposite party no. 1 was earlier married to Abdul Rehman. It is the case of the petitioner that Abdul Rehman had granted talak to the opposite party no. 1 and had also given Dain Mehar to her. It is the further case of the petitioner that she was married with Abdul Rehman in the year 1976 and has got three children out of the said wedlock. 6. The opposite party no. 1 had filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur which was registered as Misc. Case No. 30 of 1998. On 26.11.1999 an exparte order was passed directing Abdul Rehman to make payment of Rs. 700/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party nos. 6. The opposite party no. 1 had filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur which was registered as Misc. Case No. 30 of 1998. On 26.11.1999 an exparte order was passed directing Abdul Rehman to make payment of Rs. 700/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party nos. 1 to 3. Consequent to the said order the Controller of Accounts of M/s TISCO Limited was directed to realize the amount of Rs. 700/- from the salary of Abdul Rehman. However, prior to passing of the order of maintenance Abdul Rehman had expired on 05.11.1999. The petitioner on coming to know of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 30 of 1998 filed an application stating therein that she is the legally married wife of Abdul Rehman and the opposite party no. 1 is not entitled to any maintenance as had been directed earlier. The impugned order dated 25.09.2001 was passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected. 7. It appears that the earlier order had granted maintenance of Rs. 700/- per month to the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and even after the said deduction the petitioner is receiving an amount of Rs. 4766/- from M/s TISCO Limited as being a nominee of late Abdul Rehman. It further appears that the petitioner had never seen the opposite party no. 1, although she had claimed that the amount of monthly maintenance is being withdrawn by a fake lady. The exparte order was already passed on 26.11.1999 on proper consideration of the facts. The petitioner has failed to bring to the notice of the court her assertion that the amount of Rs. 700/- was being withdrawn by a fake lady or for that matter the opposite party no. 1 was never entitled for the monthly maintenance as granted vide order dated 26.11.1999. On proper consideration of the facts as indicated above the learned court below had rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner on 25.09.2001 and there being no reason to conclude otherwise, this application fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.