The main legal point established is that under Section 4(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the Magistrate has the authority to direct the State Wakf Board to pay maintenance to a divorced woman who is unable to maintain herself and her relatives are unable to provide maintenance.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Also heard Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel representing the respondent.

2. The petitioner, Tripura Board of Wakf represented by its Secretary, has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India making a challenge to the orders passed in the proceedings initiated by the respondent, who is a Muslim woman, for payment of maintenance.

3. The respondent herein had approached the Wakf Board by her application submitted in June, 1990 claiming maintenance as per the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. In the petition, it was contended that she has been divorced by her husband making her destitute without any means of livelihood. It was stated in the petition that after such divorce and desertion by the husband she had been living along with her son in penury. As regards her relatives, it was stated in the petition that they were not in a position to maintain her.

4. The respondent-wife was intimated by the petitioner Board that there is no provision in the aforesaid Act of 1986 to pay maintenance allowance to a divorced Muslim woman by the Wakf Board, unless there is specific order of the competent Court of law.

5. After the aforesaid letter dated 26-7-1990 addressed to the respondent wife by the petitioner-Board rejecting her claim for maintenance, she approached the learned CJM, South Tripura, Udaipur by filing a petition registered and numbered as case No. Misc. case 38 of 90. In the petition, she narrated her plight after her divorce by the husband. It was stated that her son was aged about 4 and half years of age and that she was unable to maintain herself and her son. It was also stated that her father and mother were aged about 77 and 70 years respectively and had no means of livelihood to provide maintenance to her. It was also stated that none of the relatives of the respondent wife was in a position to maintain her. In the circumstances, it was prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the petitioner Board for payment of maintenance. In the petition, the fact of addressing the aforesaid letter to the petitioner-Board was also mentioned.

6. The learned CJM by his order dated 21-12-1990, issued direction for providing maintenance allowance @ Rs. 300/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 1-11-1990. The learned CJM passed the order upon taking evidence. As many as 3 witnesses were examined who supported the case of the respondent wife as narrated in the petition. On the basis of the materials on record, the learned CJM being satisfied that the prerequisites for granting maintenance under Section 4(2) of the aforesaid Act of 1986 were fulfilled, passed the order dated 21-12-1990 directing the petitioner-Board to pay maintenance @ Rs. 300 per month to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application.

7. The respondent wife by her Annexure-5 petition dated 6-5-1991 approached the petitioner Board apprising the order passed by the learned CJM granting maintenance to her. It appears that the petition was duly received by the representative of the petitioner Board which will be evident from the enforcement made on the body of the petition. However, the petitioner Board did not obey the order of the learned CJM and the respondent wife did not get any maintenance from the petitioner Board. Situated thus, she filed an application before the learned CJM seeking a direction for proper implementation of the order dated 21-12-1990. In her application seeking implementation of the order by appropriate direction she narrated the entire facts including as to how she had approached the petitioner Board.

8. On the basis of the said application registered and numbered as Misc. Case No. 37 of 92, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class passed an order dated 17-5-1993 directing