SABERA Vs. HUSEN ABDUL MAJID KHATUDA
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SABERA D/O.IBRAHIM HAJI RASUL JUJARA
HUSEN ABDUL MAJID KHATUDA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) It is often said that human wisdom and good sense has limits. But it appears that technical niceties and ingenuous devices invented and adopted with a view to frustrate the ends of justice are limitless. Why is the judicial system respected I Is it because it is capable of upholding technicalities regardless of its consequences in real life ? These questions arise in the background of the maintenance proceedings instituted by the petitioner-wife whose prayer for enhance- ment of maintenance has been rejected on hyper-technical considerations
(2.) Petitioner is the divorced wife of opponent No. 1. The marriage between the parties took place some time in the year 1970. Thereafter it appears that both of them pulled on well together for some time. Out of the wedlock a daughter named Bilkish was born. Within a month or two after the birth of the daughter the opponent-husband married a second wife and gave divorce (Talaq) to the petitioner. Sometime in November 1976 the petitioner filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 47 of 1976 in the court of learned JMFC Godhra. The application was filed claiming maintenance for herself and for the daughter Bilkish. On 4/11/1976 a compromise purshis was filed by the parties and the same was accepted by the court. On the basis of the compromise purshis the wife was to get Rs 45/- per month and daughter Bilkish was to get Rs. 15.00 per month as and by way of maintenance. In all maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 60.00 per month in favour of both the petitioner-wife and her daughter was agreed and ordered to be paid on the basis of consent purshis filed by the parties.
(3.) The opponent-husband fell in arrears of this monthly allowance every now then. Therefore the petitioner was constrained to file execu- tion application and pray for issuance of warrant for recovery of the amount of arrears of monthly allowance. As stated by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge the petitioner had filed:
(i) Criminal Misc. Application No. 123 of 1977. (ii) Criminal Misc. Application No. 56 of 1978 and (iii) Criminal Misc. Application No. 141 of 1978. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.