M. Fathima Begum vs Pondicherry University

M.M. Sundresh, J.—The 1st petitioner herein was the wife of one Dr.S.Amanulla, since deceased, who was appointed as a Reader with the respondents in the year 2003. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Professor. While he was in service he died in a road accident on 1.7.2009. In the meanwhile, the 1st petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in M.C.No. 234 of 2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli. By the Order dated 23.12.2003, the said petition was closed based upon the joint memo dated 23.12.2003 filed by the 1st petitioner on her behalf as well as on behalf of the 2nd petitioner on the one hand and the deceased husband of the 1st petitioner on the other hand. The joint memo filed is extracted hereunder:

''''1) It is submitted that the 1st petitioner for herself and on behalf of the minor 2nd petitioner herein received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in full quit and settlement of past and future maintenance.

2) The 1st petitioner acknowledges and accepts the Talaq pronounced on 19.9.2003 by the respondent on 23.12.2003.

3) There is no mutual claims between the parties.''''

Thereafter the father-in-law of the 1st petitioner has approached the Additional District Court, Tiruchirapalli seeking guardianship of the 2nd petitioner by filing G.W.O.P.No. 96 of 2010. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that the father-in-law of the 1st petitioner, who was the petitioner in the said petition, died pending proceedings. Accordingly, it was dismissed as abated. These are all the background facts governing the case.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the joint memo filed by the 1st petitioner and her deceased husband before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli has got no binding effect since it was made before the proceedings initiated under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure code. There was no divorce in law. Learned counsel has made reliance upon the letter dated 5.8.2009 given by the President of the Manapparai Muslim Sunnath Janath Committee to the effect that no divorce has occurred. Further, the father-in-law of the 1st petitioner, being no more and the 2nd petitioner, being a minor living with the 1st petitioner, the writ petition will have to be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the 1st petitioner cannot wriggle out of the joint memo filed on her behalf as well as on behalf of the 2nd petitioner. The proceedings initiated by the father-in-law terminated only on the ground of being abated and therefore in the absence of any subsequent development the same cannot be relied upon. No credence can be given to the document relied upon by the petitioners, which is said to have been given by the President of the Manapparai Muslim Sunnath Janath Committee. Hence it is submitted that except those to which the 2nd petitioner is entitled to in law, the 1st petitioner is not entitled for anything.

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondents, the letter dated 5.8.2009 cannot be the basis to hold that the marriage was subsisting at the time of the death of the deceased person. On the contrary, the memo was signed by both the 1st petitioner as well as the deceased Dr.S.Amanulla before the Court. It was also recorded before the Court and signed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The 1st petitioner has acknowledged and accepted the Talaq pronounced on 19.9.2003 by her erstwhile husband on 23.12.2003. Therefore, she cannot wriggle out of the same and contend to the contrary. In view of the divorce having been granted she cannot claim anything from the respondents. Accordingly, the letter relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has got no relevancy, that too, before this Court. It cannot be put against the documents signed by the parties. Furthermore, the memo has been signed by the parties in the month of December, 2003, whereas the letter was produced on 5.8.2009 after the death of the deceased Ex.husband of the 1st petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the 1st petitioner.

Coming to the 2nd petitioner, it is not in dispute that she is the daughter of the deceased Dr.S.Amanulla. It is also not in dispute, that she has been living with the 1st petitioner. Therefore, the entitlement of the 2nd petitioner in law, being the daughter of the deceased, cannot be denied to her. As the 2nd petitioner is a minor, the 1st petitioner, being the natural guardian, is entitled to receive the same. Even the proceedings dated 23.12.2003 in M.C.No. 234 of 2003 also would show that the 2nd petitioner is with the 1st petitioner. In such view of the matter, a direction is issued to respondents to pay all the benefits due to the 2nd petitioner by treating her as a daughter of the deceased Dr.S.Amanulla within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The entitlement of the 2nd petitioner is directed to be paid to the 1st petitioner, being the mother and natural guardian of the 2nd petitioner.

The writ petition is ordered Accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.