When wakf board is liable to pay maintenance to divorced muslim wife?

    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 of Rs.300/­ to the respondent no.1 in view 
of the Provisions of Section 4 (2) of Muslim Women (Protection of 
Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.578 OF 2000


District Wakf Officer,

VERSUS
 Zulakhabee d/o Aminkhan


CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J. 
Dated    : July 24, 2014
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)964

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 of Rs.300/­ to the respondent no.1 in view 
of the Provisions of Section 4 (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.V.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 

4.
Officer and therefore, he prayed that Petition be allowed.
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.1 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.    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.
During the trial certified copy of the order of Criminal 
6.
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 PW 2 and Amin Khan PW 3 
has positively stated about the status of the respondent no.1 as 
divorcee.     Therefore,   both   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 parents 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 are 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.
sd/­
( V. M. DESHPANDE )
JUDGE.

Print Page