HASEENA BEGUM Vs. SHANWAS KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit. Naiyyur Jahnu Begum awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from opposite party No. 1. The opposite party did not pay maintenance allowance. A considerable amount become accumulated. Smt. Naiyyar Jahan Begum died upon which an objection was filed by the opposite party No. 1 stating that after her death he is not liable to pay maintenance allowance and that her heirs cannot recover the accumulated maintenance allowance as the maintenance allowance was granted personally for the deceased. The Trial Court did not agree with the contention of opposite party No. 1 and directed that he should deposit the entire amount payable to the deceased till the date of her death. Aggrieved by this order opposite party No. 2 filed Criminal Revision No. 90 of 1990 which was decided on 6.6.90 by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. He came to the conclusion that the deceased was entitled to get maintenance allowance till she was alive and since she has now died her heirs are not entitled to claim that amount. The result was that the order dated 20.1.1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 11, Saharanpur was set aside. The opposite party was absolved liability to pay unpaid maintenance allowance.

(2.) It was not disputed before the Courts below that the revisionists are the legal heirs of deceased. Had the maintenance allowance been paid in her life time then whatever money had she left upon her death would have been received by the revisionist, from the order of the Magistrate it appears that the application for maintenance allowance was decided as far back as 18.7.87 but the opposite party did not pay a single paisa with the result that a large amount accumulated and therefore she had filed an execution application and before she could get arrears of maintenance allowance, she died.

(3.) The revisionists before this Court are the mother and brothers of the deceased. The opposite party is the husband of deceased Smt. Naiyyur Jahan Begum. He is the preferential heir of the deceased than the revisionist. Even if for the same of the argument it is assumed that after the death of Smt. Naiyyur Jahan Begum, the opposite party was liable to pay the accumulated amount of arrears to her heir, I do not think that the revisionists would be entitled to get that amount because the opposite party is the husband of the deceased and he has a preferential right to assets left by the deceased. The arrears of maintenance allowance can at best be created as assets left by the deceased. In view of the above the applicants were not entitled to the arrears of maintenance allowance which accrued in favour of Smt. Naiyyur Jahan Begum.