IBRAHIM ISMAIL UGHRADAR Vs. HASINABEN ISE MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has a chequered history. Brief facts may be noted, at the outset.

(2.) Petitioner is an Indian citizen. He was earlier residing in South Africa. However, being an Indian citizen, he has returned to his native place since a few years. His son Zakir Ibrahim has matrimonial disputes with his wife Hasinaben. Hasinaben has instituted proceedings for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Zakir Ibrahim, however, has not carried out the directions issued by the Court. Hasina unfortunately therefore does not receive regular maintenance.

(3.) Be that as it may, the petitioner is involved in a controversial compromise. In Criminal Misc. Application No.599 of 2006 filed by Hasina against her husband Zakir, a compromise pursis dated 18.1.07 was presented before the Court signed by Hasina and the petitioner Ibrahim. Significantly, Zakir was not a signatory to the document. In the said purshis, it is stated that the petitioner has returned from South Africa on 4.1.07 to his native place. He, as per the terms of the compromise, permitted Hasina to reside with her minor son in a house situated in Masjid Falia of Rahadpor village till she survives. Apparently, as per this pursis, Hasina entered the house in question, to be referred to hereinafter as the 'said property'.