http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: THE SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARDAND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SYED FATIMA NACHI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/07/1996

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 616        JT 1996 (6)   258  1996 SCALE  (5)121

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Punchhi, J.      Special leave granted.      The Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Madras, and the Superintendent  of  Wakfs,  Tirunelveli,  he  appellants herein, are  aggrieved against an order of the High Court of Madras, dated 16.3.1994 in Crl. O.P. No.3557/93 declining to interfere and quash a proceeding in M.C. No.11/92 pending on the  file   of  the   Court  of   the  Judicial  Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in  which the  respondent-Syed Fatima  Nachi-is Claiming maintenance as the applicant.      The respondent  is a  Muslim divorced wife. She filed a petition against  the appellants  under Section  4(2) of the Muslim Women  (Protection of  Rights on  Divorce) Act,  1986 (for short  ’the Act’)  seeking maintenance  at the  rate of Rs.750/- per  mensem. The  petition was founded on the facts that she  was married to one Syed Ahmed Moulana on 10.6.1980 in accordance  with the  tenets of Muslim Law and out of the wedlock, she  had procreated  female twins  on 6.4.1981. her husband divorced her on 12.6.1986 and since then she has not remarried. Claiming  that the  respondent had  no income  or means to  maintain herself,  as well  as  her  minor  female children, none  of them  owning any  property she was, thus, unable to  maintain herself ant required intervention of the Court in  providing her  a suitable sum for maintenance. She claimed that  she had  earlier been leading a good life as a married woman  but after divorce, was in dire straits and in suffering. She  Claimed that  under the  Mohammedan  Law,  a Muslim woman, in such circumstances can get maintenance from her prospective heirs. According to hers a host of relatives as given  in the Act as well as under the Mohammedan Law are responsible to  provide maintenance  to her and if those are unable to do so, the claim of maintenance must be met by the Wakf  Board.   It  was  also  Maintained  that  neither  her prospective heirs  nor her  parents were  in a  position  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

provide maintenance to her and thus there lay a bounden duty on the  Wakf Board  to that  effect; hence claim of Rs.750/- per mensem.       Instead of facing the petition on merit to its logical end, the  appellants, who  were the only respondents in that petition,  moved  the  High  Court  of  Madras  praying  for quashing of  proceedings in  exercise of  its diverse powers under the  Code of  Criminal Procedure,  but the  High Court declined to do so. They have, in turn, approached this Court for the same purpose, basing their claim on the same grounds as before the High Court.      The Parliament  enacted the Act to unto the effect of a Constitution Bench  decision of  this Court  in Mohd.  Ahmad Khan v.  (1985 2  SCC 556)  because the  said  decision  was strongly opposed  to by  a sizeable  section of  the  Muslim Community. The  Act,  as  the  Preamble  suggests,  came  to protect the  rights of  Muslim women  who have been divorced by, or  obtained divorce from, their husbands and to provide for matters  connected therewith  or incidental thereto. The brief text  of the  Act embodies the all important Section 4 whereunder orders  can be  made for  payment of Maintenance. The said provision is reproduced hereunder:      "4.   Order    for   payment    off      maintenance. -      (1)    Notwithstanding     anything      contained    in    the    foregoing      provisions of  this Act  or in  any      other law  for the  time   being in      force, where    a  Magistrate    is      satisfied that  a   divorced  woman      has not  remarried and  is not able      to  maintain  herself    after  the      iddat period,   he  way   make   an      order  directing    such  of    her      relatives as  would be  entitled to      inherit her  property on  her death      according to Muslim law to pay such      reasonable and  fair maintenance to      her as  he may  determine fit   and      proper, having  regard to the needs      of   the    divorced   woman,   the      standard’s of  life enjoyed  by her      during her marriage  and the  means      of   such   relative’s   and   such      maintenance shall   be  payable  by      such     relatives      in      the      proportions  in  which  they  would      inherit, her  property and  at such      periods as  he may  specify in his,      order:             Provided  that   where  such      divorced woman  has  children,  the      Magistrate   shall    order    only      such  children  to  pay maintenance      to   her, and  in the  event of any      such children  being unable  to pay      such  maintenance,  the  Magistrate      shall order  the  parents  of  such      divorced woman  to pay maintenance,      to her :           Provided further  that if  any      of the  parents is  unable  to  pay      his  or     her   share     of  the      maintenance    ordered    by    the      Magistrate on  the ground of his or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    her not  having the  means  to  pay      the same,  the Magistrate  may,  on      proof   of   such  inability  being      furnished to   him, order  that the      share of  such relatives    in  the      maintenance ordered  by him be paid      by such  of  the other relatives as      may appear  to  the  Magistrate  to      have  the means of paying the sa me      in   such   proportions   as   the,      Magistrate May think fit to order .        (2) Where  a  divorced  woman  is      unable   to   maintain herself  and      she has  no relatives  as mentioned      in  sub-section   (1)  or      such      relatives   our any   one  of  them      have not  enough means  to  pay the      maintenance   ordered      by   the      Magistrate or  the other  relatives      have  not  the  means  to  pay  the      shares of  those relatives    whose      shares   have   been   ordered   by      the Magistrate to  be paid  by such      other relatives  under  the proviso      to sub-section  (1) the  Magistrate      may,   by order,  direct the  State      Wakf  Board   established     under      Section 9 of the Wakf Act, 1954 (29      of 1954),  or under  any other  law      for the  time being  in force  in a      State, functioning  in the  area in      which   the  woman resides, to  pay      such maintenance  as determined  by      him under  sub-section (1)  or,  as      the case  may be, to pay the shares      of such  of the  relatives who  are      unable to  pay, at  such periods as      he  may   specify  in  his  order."      [emphasis supplied]      A bare  reading of  the provision shows that a divorced woman is entitled to claim a reasonable and fair maintenance from such  of her  relatives as would be entitled to inherit her property on her death, according to Muslim Law, provided she has  not remarried  and is not able to maintain herself. Such  maintenance,   however,  shall   be  payable  by  such relatives in  proportion  to  the  share  which  they  would inherit  in   her  property  and  at  such  periods  as  the Magistrate may  specify in  his order. If the divorced woman has children,  the  first  proviso  to  sub-section  (1)  of Section 4  mandates  that  the  liability  to  maintain  her firstly lies  on them.  In the  event of  her children being unable to  maintain her, the liability shifts to her parents under the same proviso. The liability of the relatives other than the  children and  the parents,  follows  sequentially, subject to  tire conditions  as embodied in the proviso. The liability  of   the  relatives   does  not   depend  on  the contingency that  the divorced woman has property which they would inherit.  It looks  incongruous though that a divorced woman having  property  would  yet  be  unable  to  maintain herself. Seemingly,  the phraseology  has been  employed  to ascertain firstly  such of  those relatives  who could  have inherited her  property, fictionally  on the  basis that she could be having property, and secondly as if she had died on the  date  when  the  need  for  identification  arose.  The speculative plea  of any  relative that he or she may not be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

available to  be ap heir on the date when the divorced woman would  actually  die,  would  neither  be  here  nor  there. Climbing down,  if the  divorced woman  has no  relatives as mentioned in  sub-section (1)  or  relatives  who  have  not enough means  to pay  her maintenance,  the State Wakf Board functioning in  the area,  in which  the divorced  woman  is resident,  has  been  foisted  with  the  liability  to  pay suitable maintenance  to  her,  on  the  Magistrate’s  order and/or direction.      We have  taken care  to underline  and emphasis certain words in the text of Section 4 (supra). As is evident, there fire  more   than  one  orders  which  are  contemplated  or Conceived of,  to be  passed by the Magistrate in the morass of fluctuations,  depending upon  the existence of Children, parents and  the heirs  and their capability or inability of making payment of maintenance and as to its proportions. The State Wakf Board comes at the bottom of the list to shoulder the onus  of payment  of  maintenance.  The  scheme  of  the provision is,  in a  manner, unique in character, in grading down the  responsibility of  payment of maintenance from one to the  other and  finally coming  to rest on the State Wakf Board, which is the last in line to bear the burden.      The appellants would have us hold that sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 are mutually exclusive and the separate language employed  therein, to  cover different  situations, breeds further  exclusivity,  as  it  is  Contemplated  that orders  after   orders  might  have  to  be  passed  by  the Magistrate  in  the  pursuit  to  grant  the  divorced  wife maintenance. It  has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants that  unless sub-section  (1) of  Section 4  gets exhausted by proper orders, sub-section (2) of Section 4 (in which the  liability of the State Wakf Board is to be found) cannot be  invoked. In  other words, it is contended that in the present  set of  proceedings, the  appellants cannot  be made to  face or litigate about before the Magistrate trying the matter.  We regretfully  do not  agree to  such line  of thinking.  The  appellants  would  have  us  hold  that  the provision concedes  multiplicity of  proceedings, broadly in the following  manner :  (1) the  proceedings shall  in  the first instance  be initiated  against the  children  of  the divorced woman;  (2) if  the  children  are  unable  to  pay maintenance then  the second  proceedings shall be initiated against the  parents of  the  divorced  woman;  (3)  if  the parents or  any one  of them is unable to pay the respective share of  maintenance  then  fresh  proceedings  be  started against the  relatives; (4) in case the relatives are unable to meet  the claim  of  maintenance,  fresh  proceedings  be initiated against  "other relatives" ; and (5) finally, when no relative  exists as  mentioned in sub-section (1) or such relatives or  any one of them unable to pay maintenance then another set  of proceedings  be initiated  against the State Wakf Board;  all backed  by the orders of the Magistrate And since the State Wakf Board comes last, it is maintained that its  turn   instantly  has   not  yet   arrived  because  no proceedings have been initiated against the relatives.      Going by  the arguments  find the  reasoning adopted by the appellants,  it would,  in our  way of  thinking, have a devastating effect  on the  purpose for  which the provision was enacted.  the  Drafter’s  pattern  in  sub-dividing  the provision into sub-sections (1) and (2) evidently was not to cause many  split  in  the  legislative  theme  because  the provision, as  it appears to us, is an integrated whole. One step is  dependent on  another. It  is futile for a divorced woman seeking  succour to  run after  relatives, be  it  her children, parents, relatives or other relatives, who are not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

possessed of  means to offer her maintenance and in fighting litigations in  succession against  them, dragging  them  to courts  of   law  in   order  to   obtain  negative   orders justificatory to the last resort of moving against the State Wakf Board.  In our  considered view,  she would  instead be entitled to  plead and  prove such  relevant  facts  in  one proceeding,  as   to  the   inability   of   her   relations aforementioned, maintaining  her  and  directing  her  claim against the  State Wakf  Board in the first instance. It is, however, open  for the  State Wakf  Board to controvert that the relations  mentioned in  the provision, or some of them, have the  means to pay maintenance to her. In that event the Magistrate would  perfectly be  justified  in  adding  those relatives as parties to the litigation in order to determine as towards  whom shall  he direct  his orders for payment of maintenance. In  one and  the same  proceeding, one  or more orders conceivably  can be  passed in favour of the divorced woman, subject of course to her not remarrying and remaining unable to maintain herself. We hold accordingly.      We are  thus satisfied that the High Court committed no wrong in  declining to interfere at the initial stage of the proceedings at  the behest  of the  appellants. They  are at liberty to  take before  the Magistrate  hearing the matter, such defences as are open to them on the merit of the matter and within  the framework of the legislative scheme embodied in Section 4 of the Act.      Before parting with the judgment, it need be taken into account that notice to the respondent was issued, subject to the appellant depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- in this Court, irrespective of  the result of this case, for the benefit of the respondent,  to obtain  it  and  defray  the  litigation expenses. The  respondent, in turn, did not engage a counsel but despatched  a letter  to this  Court, praying  that some counsel be  arranged by  the Court to represent her and that she be  remitted the  said sum  of Rs.10,000/-.  In  such  a situation, we  had appointed  Mr. Uday  Umesh Lalit, learned counsel as  an amicus  curiae to  assist us in the matter on her behalf.  We had  the advantage of his able assistance in appreciating  this  matter.  In  our  view,  he  deserves  a remuneration  of   Rs.3,000/-.  The   Registry  is  directed accordingly, to  make payment  to Mr.  Lalit out  of the sum deposited. The  balance sum of Rs.7,000/- be remitted to the respondent  as   succour,  to   tide  over   her   financial difficulties, which  is ordered not to be taken into account of reckoned in determining any claim for maintenance.      For the afore reasons, this appeal is dismissed.