The judgment establishes the principle that a concocted document cannot be used to deny a Muslim woman's entitlement to maintenance under the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986.

1. It is an unfortunate situation wherein a poor woman, who is the 1st petitioner herein, was given in marriage to the 1st respondent herein at the auspicious of a so-called Mahallu Committee of which RW1 was the Secretary. A piece of property in which the residential building, wherein the petitioners are residing, was allotted to her by her parents in the joint names of the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent. Two children were born in the wedlock and presently, the children are aged 15 and 13 respectively.

2. The petitioners were thrown out and the 1st respondent went in search of other women. It seems that he has married another poor Muslim woman with whom he is presently residing. A child has been born in that relationship also.

3. It seems that RW1, who is the so-called Secretary of the Mahallu Committee, is also hand in gloves with the 1st respondent. The evidence clearly reveals that Ext.X1 document was cooked up by the 1st respondent with the active assistance and connivance of RW1. Ext.X1 was produced before the court below by RW1.

4. When the 1st respondent has abandoned the petitioners, they have approached the court below seeking maintenance. The court below has taken the view that the 1st petitioner is a divorced Muslim woman and, therefore, she is not entitled to separate maintenance. Unfortunately, the court below has approved Ext.X1 without going into the evidence properly. The court below has thrown out the claims of the 1st petitioner mercilessly and has ordered an amount of Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance to the two children, who are petitioners 2 and 3. It seems that the court below has not applied mind to the stark reality that two children, who were then aged 10 and 8 respectively, could not pull on with an amount of Rs. 300/- per month. After refusing the claim of the 1st petitioner, the court below has ordered maintenance to be paid by the 1st respondent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month.

5. It is based on Ext.X1 that the court below has treated the 1st petitioner as a divorced Muslim woman. In fact, it is evident from Ext.X1 as well as the evidence of RW1 that Ext.X1 is a concocted document which could have never created any divorce between the parties. At the same time, it is a fact that the 1st respondent has contended in the written statement that he has divorced the 1st petitioner by pronouncing Thalaq. When he has resorted to a specific contention to that effect, even by discarding Ext.X1, that can be treated as divorce. In such case, the 1st petitioner is entitled to get maintenance for the period of Idath, reasonable and fair provision and maintenance, an amount equal to mahar, etc.

6. From the evidence of RW1, it is evident that the affidavit filed by RW1 before the court below in lieu of chief examination was prepared by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent before the court below. Even though RW1 had approached the court below by styling himself as an independent witness for producing Ext.X1, his evidence in lieu of chief examination was prepared and attested by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. That itself speaks volumes against RW1. The further versions of RW1 in cross examination also clearly reveal that Ext.X1 is a concocted document. At first, he had made a version that Ext.X1 agreement was prepared in his presence. Later, he deviated from that version and stated that it was prepared and then only brought to him by one Poker.

7. In Ext.X1, different ink is used in the stamp paper and the other papers. As condition No. 2 in Ext.X1, it is stated that the 1st petitioner does not want anything by way of money or gold ornaments from the 1st respondent. At the same time, in page No. 7, it is stated that an amount of Rs. 6,000/- by way of maintenance during the period of Idath and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- by way of reasonable and fair provision and maintenance thereby totalling an amount of Rs. 21,000/- was paid by the 1st respondent directly to th