DISTRICT WAKF OFFICER Vs. ZULAKHABEE AMINKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Sec. 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. With the assistance of respective learned Counsels I have gone through the impugned judgment and orders.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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divorced wife, she is not entitled the maintenance, and therefore, the revision was allowed and order of maintenance was revoked. Till the said order was revoked she is getting the maintenance.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.