Abrar Ahmad vs Union of India (UOI)

We have heard Shri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Govind Saran appears for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ms. Seema Shukla appears for Smt. Shamim Ara-Respondent No. 5-wife. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad is a formal party to the proceedings.

This writ petition arises out of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 23.11.2005 in Original Application No. 547 of 2004, Abrar Ahmad v. Union of India and Ors. by which the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application challenging the order of the Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad, directing that 50% pension of the Petitioner-Shri Abrar Ahmad, Ex-Junior Engineer, Grade-I (Drawing) retired from the office of Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Central Railway, Allahabad in the year 2000, shall be paid to his wife Smt. Shamim Ara. The order was passed after the Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 1996, Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. and Anr., was decided by the Supreme Court on 1.10.2002 (arising out of Criminal Revision No. 710 of 1993 decided on 28.2.1993), and by which the Supreme Court, in the celebrated judgment, which has become milestone in the Muslim law, held that acceptance of mere plea of previous Talaq taken in the written statement unsubstantiated, cannot be accepted as a proof of Talaq, bringing to an end the marital life with effect from the date of filing of the written statement. The Supreme Court held as follows:

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. Neither the marriage between the parties stands dissolved on 5.12.90 nor does the liability of the Respondent No. 2 to pay maintenance comes to an end on that day the Respondent No. 2 shall continue to remain liable for payment of maintenance until the obligation comes to an end in accordance with law. The costs in this appeal shall be born by the Respondent No. 2.

(R.C. Lahoti, J.)

(P. Venkatrama Reddi, J)

After the judgment of Supreme Court dated October 1, 2002, the Respondent-wife applied to the Railway administration for implementation of the orders of payment of maintenance from her husband''s pension, on which the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad and Senior Divisional Finance Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad jointly passed an order on 28.10.2003 to give 50% pension of the Petitioner''s husband. On 17.2.2006, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 28.10.2003, making it clear that the Petitioner-husband shall be liable to pay maintenance as was being paid and deducted from his pension before passing of the order.

We are informed that a Criminal Revision No. 3505 of 2005, arising out of the proceedings u/s 127 Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the maintenance, is still pending in this Court.

It is admitted that by the last order, the Family Court directed the payment of maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month.

The writ petition was dismissed on 28.11.2007 for want of prosecution. It was restored on 13.10.2008. In the meantime a sum of Rs. 1,47,140/- was drawn from the account of the Petitioner maintained in Punjab National Bank, Chowk Branch, Allahabad, and was paid to the Respondent-wife.

Shri Vipin Kumar Saxena states that the Petitioner is ready to pay the maintenance @ Rs. 400/- after adjusting Rs. 1,47,140/-. He submits that whatever is the balance will be paid by the Petitioner.

Ms. Seema Shukla, on the other hand, states that 50% of the pension was commuted and that the Respondent-wife aged about 70 years is entitled to higher amount of maintenance taking into account of inflation and the cost of living.

The status of the parties, so far as their marriage is concerned, was settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is also admitted that the Respondent-wife is entitled maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month, unless it is enhanced by the Court or mutually settled to be enhanced by the parties, and that some accounting has to be made between them with regard to the adjustment out of Rs. 1,47,140/-realised by the Respondent-wife. It is also admitted that the Petitioner is maintaining his second wife, and his two daughters from her and that the Respondent-wife has four major sons out of which the eldest son is employed in the Railways.

Although it is stated by Shri Saxena that the parties had tried to settle the matter with the help of intermediaries on several occasions, we are of the opinion that since both the parties are about 70 years of age they should settle the matter to live in peace.

With the consent of the counsels of the parties, we refer the matter to the ''Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre''. Both the counsels will persuade the parties to appear at the Mediation Centre on 11th May, 2011. The Mediation Centre will appoint trained mediators to settle the dispute. The Centre will fix the date/dates and report to the Court as soon as the matter is resolved. The parties are given two months'' time to negotiate.