Allahabad High Court
Shameem Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:95430 Reserved on 11.02.2025 Delivered on 05.06.2025 Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5566 of 2024 Revisionist :- Shameem Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Meraj Ahmad Khan Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Maintenance Case No.447 of 2021 Smt. Ayesha and others Vs. Shameem Ahmad, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Whereby the opposite party has been directed to pay maintenance to the applicant No.1 Smt. Ayesha, applicant No.3 Km. Imayesha and applicant No.5 Master Shayan Ali at the rate of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,500/- per month respectively.
2. Applicant No.1 is wife of the opposite party and applicant Nos. 3 and 5 are his minor children. The claim of maintenance with regard to applicant No.2 Km. Alshifa and applicant No.4 Master Awan was refused by learned court below on the ground that they were not born out of wedlock of the applicant No.1 Smt. Ayesha and opposite party Shameem Ahmad, they are children of previous and subsequent husband of applicant No.1. It is also directed in the impugned order that any amount obtained by the applicant towards maintenance in some other case will be liable to adjustment.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondents and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.
4. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that applicants Smt. Ayesha, Km. Imayesha, Kumari Alshifa, Master Awan and Master Shayan Ali filed maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad with averments that applicant No.1 was earlier married with Abdul Hakeem and his daughter Km. Alshifa was born of her wedlock with said Abdul Hakeem, but he divorced her subsequent to birth of said daughter. Thereafter she solemnized Nikah with opposite party Mohd. Shameem according to Muslim rites and rituals, keeping in view her future and also future of her daughter, on 19.02.2007, in which her father had spent Rs.10 lakh. She was sent off to her matrimonial home after marriage, while residing in the house of opposite party she came to know that her husband was already married with a woman namely Smt. Hazra @ Bhuri, her husband and his previous wife used to tease her for bringing lesser dowry and they used to demand Rs.5 lakh cash and a plot of 200 Sq. yards. Whereas her father had already gifted her husband a plot of 50 Sq.yards which he sold later. The applicant got pregnant in the meanwhile and gave birth to a daughter namely Imayesha which was of 10 years old at the time of filing of maintenance case. Opposite party produced a fake agreement in the court at Moradabad on 09.06.2007, in which he has stated that he divorced the applicant by Khula (mutual consent). The signature of the applicant is forged on this agreement. When she raised query regarding this agreement he took it lightly and stated that it was all a prank, and apologized to her. After this, the applicant was subjected to Halala Nikaha according to Muslim Law, in view of this fake agreement of divorce by her husband. Resultantly, she was married with Buniyad son of Akbar and gave birth to a son whose name is Master Aawan. In the year 2017 opposite party Shameem Ahmad got her divorced by Buniyad and again remarried with her on 12.03.2018 and on that date a fresh Nikah was under gone between the parties by Kazi Kari Mumtaz in the presence of the brothers of the applicant who acted as a witness alongwith one Ansar a witness of locality. Another son namely Master Shayan was born on 25.06.2020 out of her wedlock with opposite party after remarriage. After birth of the son, opposite party and his earlier wife again started harassing the applicant and revived their demand of dowry, and ultimately turned her out from their place on 13.05.2021 alongwith her children, in wearing apparel and cautioned her to not come back without fulfilling their demand of dowry. The opposite party did not relent even after much persuation by her brother Azim and ultimately she had to take shelter at her parental place. She did not have any independent source of earning, she is not skilled in any job. The opposite party is skilled in making and selling inverter and battery, he also installs solar pannel and runs a cloth shop in the name of Adnan Collection. He maintains two cars Creta and Ertiga and is also engaged in property dealing. He owns two houses and earns around Rs.1,50,000/- per month from all sources. The applicant claimed Rs.30,000/- as maintenance for herself and Rs.10,000/- for applicant No.2 and Rs.8,000/- each for applicant Nos. 3,4 and 5. Thus she has claimed Rs.64,000/- as maintenance for herself and her minor children.
5. The learned court below summoned the opposite party, who appeared and file his written statement, in which he admitted his first Nikah with the applicant No.1. He denied other allegations made by the applicant and stated that at the time of Nikah of answering opposite party, the applicant was divorcee and she was having a daughter named as Alshifa born from her earlier husband Abdul Hakeem. She married opposite party on 19.02.2007 in Delhi, after running from home. This marriage was registered on 21.02.2007 in the office of Sub Registrar . The opposite party was already married with one Smt. Hazra and their Nikah was solemnized in the year 1996 and she is still residing with him, the opposite party never took the applicant at his home and he resided with her in Delhi. The applicant never met his first wife Smt. Hazra, the allegation of demand of dowry is baseless and false. The opposite party came to know that his wife was in relationship with one Buniyad alias Sikandar, prior to his marriage with her and when he inquired about this, she did not reply satisfactorily and Buniad alias Sikandar started visiting the applicant which resulted in altercation between the parties and relationship became over borne and he divorced her voluntarily on 31.05.2007 and paid Rs.50,000/- as Mehar. She has been residing with Buniyad alias Sikandar just after being divorced by opposite party. No child was born out of wedlock between the parties and he resumes his right of DNA testing of children. Applicant is living with her husband Buniyad Ali since 2007, after divorce between the parties on 31.05.2007. The divorce deed bears signatures of applicant No.1 and her father. She has not challenged this Talaqnama on any forum. It is false that the opposite remarried the applicant after Nikah Halala and subsequent divorce with Buniyad Ali. The Nikah deed of 12.03.2018 is a forged document, in which the applicant has wrongly shown her father as deceased, whereas he was alive on that day, even the witnesses have denied the marriage deed.
6. Both sides were given opportunity to lead evidence and they have filed a large number of documents in support of their respective claim.
7. The applicant has also filed an affidavit disclosing income of assets and liabilities in compliance of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. However, opposite party did not file any such affidavit as mandated by Hon’ble Supreme Court, from which it will be discovered that he is not willing to disclose his income.
8. Learned court below has framed four points of determination on the basis of pleadings of the parties. The learned court below has given a finding after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with opposite party, and opposite party has claimed that he divorced her on 31.05.2007. However, opposite party has kept mum on pleading of the applicant that after being divorced by opposite party her Nikah Halala was solemnized with Buniyad Ali. Thus, this silence of opposite party fortifies the claim of the applicant that her remarriage was solemnized with opposite party on 12.03.2018 and therefore, a finding is given that the applicant is legally wedded wife of opposite party. Opposite party has admitted in his evidence that from the period when the opposite party and applicant got separated, he did not provide any maintenance to his wife or her children.
9. The learned court below has also given a finding that this is admitted fact that applicant No.2 Alshifa was born of earlier marriage of the applicant No.1 with Abdul Hakeem and a son Aawan kbar was born to her from Buniyad son of Akbar. Thus, as applicant Km. Imayesha and Master Shayan Ali are born out of the wedlock of the parties, the opposite party is under obligation to maintain applicant No.1 and the two children Km. Imayesha and Master Shayan Ali.
10. Learned court below has also given a finding that the applicant No.1 is unable to maintain herself and her children. She is not skilled to earn her livelihood, she has been residing separately from her husband due to sufficient reasons. Even the opposite party has claimed that he divorced her as earlier on 09.06.2007. The applicant has testified in her evidence that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by her husband and his previous wife. The opposite party is possessed of sufficient means to maintain the applicant No.1 and her children Imayesha and Master Shayan. With these findings, the learned court below has awarded total Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to applicant No.1, and Rs.2,500/- per month to applicant Nos. 3 and 5, thus total Rs.10,000/- has been awarded as maintenance to the applicant Nos. 1,3, and 5. It is also directed that entire arrears from date of filing of application to date of judgment will be paid within two months.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that marriage of the applicant No.1 with opposite party was her second marriage after she was divorced by her earlier husband Abdul Hakeem. She was blessed with a daughter namely Alshifa from her earlier husband, with whom she entered at her matrimonial place after marriage with opposite party. He marriage with opposite party was solemnized on 13.02.2007 without any demand of dowry and according to Muslim rites and rituals. However, she lived with the revisionist only for three months and due to her bad behaviour revisionist divorced her on 31.05.2007. On 09.06.2007 a compromise took place between them and it was agreed that they will live separately and will not take any action against each other. In view of this compromise, the parties lived together after some time of the talak. The applicant No.1 performed Nikah with one Buniyad Ali alias Sikandar which is evident from Aadhar card and statement of account of applicant No.1, in which name of her husband is shown as Mohd. Sikandar. Applicant Nos. 3,4 and 5 were born out of wedlock of his wife with Buniad Ali alias Sikandar, and none of the children of applicant No.1 were born out of wedlock of parties. On 13.07.2021 Maulana Mohd. Mumtaz stated that Smt. Ayesha has asked him to prepare the receipt of Nikah, and at the behest of her, he prepared a forged receipt of Nikah. On the basis of this forged Nikahnama the respondent No.2 has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alongwith her children which are arrayed as applicant Nos. 2 to 5 in maintenance petition. This is wrong to say that remarriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.03.2018 after he gave divorce to the applicant Smt. Ayesha.
12. The factual position is that after divorce on 31.05.2007 given by the revisionist -respondent No.2, no remarriage took place between them after so called Halala Nikah and applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are not born out of his wedlock with respondent No.2.
13. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that the learned court below has wrongly provided maintenance to the applicant No.1 who is his divorced wife and remarried Buniad Ali thereafter. He is also not liable to pay maintenance to her children as they are not his biological off springs. The amount of maintenance is also exorbitant, the impugned order suffers from factual and legal error and is not sustainable. He is himself blessed with five children born out of his wedlock with his wife Hazra. The revisionist bears no obligation to pay any sum of money to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
14. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that this fact is not denied that marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 19.02.2007 according to Muslim rites and rituals. Respondent No.2 lived with the revisionist at his place Mohalla Kalsa road Quasba and Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad during subsistence of the marriage of the revisionist, respondent No.2 Km. Ayesha daughter was born in the yer 2011, and was of 10 years age at the time of filing of maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revisionist and his first wife used to subject her to matrimonial cruelty and harassment and got a fake Talaqnama (divorce agreement) bearing dated 09.06.2007 at Kutchery Moradabad, in which signature of the applicant is forged, view to get rid of the applicant and forced her to undergo Halala Nikah with Buniyad Ali son of Akbar, resident of village at Police Station Madhawal, District Bijnor from whom she gave birth to a son namely Awan. Subsequently, the revisionist got her divorced by Buniyad and remarried with her on 12.03.2018 and couple was blessed with a child namely Master Shayan on 26.05.2020.
15. Learned court below has rightly awarded maintenance to the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on due appreciation of evidence on record and no interference is warranted in present revision in the impugned judgment and order.
16. With above submissions, learned counsel prayed for setting aside impugned judgment and order.
17. In the present case, revisionist who is opposite party before the court below has admitted the factum of Muslim marriage with respondent No.2, the original applicant on 19.02.2007. He has propounded a agreement to divorce by Khula bearing dated 31.05.2007, in which purported signature of revisionist, respondent No.2 and four witnesses are shown. However, respondent No.2 Smt. Ayesha has denied the genuineness of this document and has stated that in her pleading that this agreement was not signed by her. However, she admitted that after this forged divorce, she entered into her Nikah Halala according to Muslim custom with one Buniyad at the behest of the revisionist Shameem Ahmad and she gave birth to a son by this marital relationship who is with her. She has taken a stand that in the year 2017 that opposite party Shameem Ahmad got her divorced by said Buniyad and solemnized remarriage with her on 12.03.2018. The applicant’s case is that she is having four children out of whom the eldest child Km. Alshifa was born out of her first husband Abdul Hakeem and Master Aawan was born out of her wedlock with Buniyad (Sikandar) and their children Km. Imayesha and Master Shayan were born out of her wedlock with opposite party Shameem Ahmad in juxtaposition to this. The opposite party has out rightly denied this claim and has stated that no child was born out of his wedlock with Smt. Ayesha, as their marriage subsisted for a short time in the year 2007 and in the same year a divorce occurred between the parties through agreement (Sulahnama), and thereafter she got married with Buniyad alias Sikandar and no remarriage between the parties occurred as claimed by the applicant, and on this count he has denied his responsibility to maintain the applicant and her children. The applicant examined herself as PW-1 in support of her case, the opposite party Shameem Ahmad has examined himself PW-1, Ansar Hussain as DW-2, Usman DW-3, Mohd. Sher DW-4, Riyasat Hussain DW-5, Krishna Kumar alias Deepu DW-6, Amin Khan DW-7, Mohd. Ravi DW-8, Heena DW-9 and Atul Gupta DW-10.
18. Although the opposite party in his written statement has not admitted the factum of alleged Halala Nikah of the applicant with Buniyad, yet she has pleaded the factum of entering into Halala Nikah with Buniyad after her alleged Talaqnama with opposite party. He has not specifically denied in his written statement the factum of said Halala Nikah of the applicant with Buniyad specifically.
19. The applicant has stated in her evidence that she was married with Abdul Hakeem in the year 2004 and his daughter Alshifa was born out of their wedlock in December, 2004. She was divorced by Abdul Hakeem due to Shameem whom she knew since 20003 and she was a visitor at her home when her marriage with Abdul Hakeem was subsisting. She got her marriage with Shameem Ahmad registered at Ghaziabad. Shameem Ahmad kept her in Delhi for 5-6 months, it was their love-cum-arranged Marriage. She stayed at the place of Shameem Ahmad and also at his native place after the marriage. She gave birth to a girl child Imayesha in the year 2011 and gave birth to a son on 26.05.2020 after her marriage with revisionist. However, revisionist has denied remarriage solemnized on 12.03.2018 and stated that this Nikahnama is a forged document.
20. She gave birth to her younger son at paternal village of Shameem Ahmad on 26.05.2020. She also stated that she is acquainted with Buniyad Ali since 2016, who is not known as Sikandar. She lived with Buniyad Ali for one year between 2016-17. She gave birth to a child a son in the year 2017 from her marriage with Buniyad Ali. She admitted this fact that in certain documents name of her husband is shown as Sikandar. In her ration card also name of the head of the family is shown as Sikandar and one daughter Km. Imayesha is shown there as daughter of Sikandar, other names are not shown in the ration card. She has denied this fact that she got married with Buniyad Ali in the year 2007 in cross-examination. Thus, there is difference in the stand of parties regarding marriage of the applicant with Buniyad Ali. She has not specified in her pleadings that when she solemnized Nikah Halala with Buniyad Ali after being divorced by opposite party. The opposite party has denied his remarriage with the applicant on 12.03.2018. He also denied his fatherhood of Km. Imayesha and Master Shyan, whom maintenance has been granted by the learned court below, under impression that they are born out of wedlock of revisionist and respondent No.2.
21. This is trite law that findings of facts recorded by court of first instance on the basis of evidence on record cannot be interfered with in revision unless they appear to be perverse.
22. The respondent No.2 had also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, in Complaint Case No.1037 of 2021, Smt. Ayesha Vs. Shamim Ahmad Ansari and others, wherein application for interim maintenance was dismissed by learned Magistrate on 19.02.2022 on the ground that this fact is a matter of meticulous evidence that whether the complainant is legally wedded wife of opposite party and any domestic violence was caused to her. Inasmuch as a period of one year has elapsed since filing of the complainant. Smt. Hazra, the first wife of opposite party has lodged an FIR against the applicant on 04.07.2023, under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC with allegation that respondent No.2 Ayesha has produced a false receipt of Nikah Nama bearing dated 12.03.2018 between her and Shameem Ahmad who is husband of the informant, in which father of Smt. Ayesha has been shown as “since deceased” whereas her father died on 12.11.2019. She manufactured a fake marriage certificate (Nikahnama) to blackmail the informant and her husband Shameem Ahmad.
23. The original applicant had filed criminal Appeal No.71 of 2022 before court of session feeling aggrieved by the order of Judicial Magistrate in complaint case under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, whereby interim maintenance has been denied to her. However said Criminal Appeal was also dismissed by Additional Session Judge, vide order dated 13.03.2023.
24. The right of maintenance of divorced Muslim Women are discussed at length by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Mohd Abdul Samad vs The State Of Telangana Criminal Appeal No. 2842 of 2024, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court placed reliance on judgment of Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India (2001) 7 SCC 740, the Constitution Bench Iqbal Bano Vs. State of U.P. and another 2007 (6) SCC 785, Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum And Ors 1985 (2) SCC 556, Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan 2010 (1) SCC 666, Five Judge Bench judgment in Khatoon Nisa vs State Of U.P. And Ors. (2002) 12 SCC 646, Shamim Bano vs Asraf Khan 2014 (12) SCC 636, Shamima Farooqui vs Shahid Khan 2015 (5) SCC 705 laid down following proposition of law.
“a) Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women.
b) Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women.
c) Insofar as divorced Muslim women are concerned, –
i) Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. applies to all such Muslim women, married and divorced under the Special Marriage Act in addition to remedies available under the Special Marriage Act.
ii) If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law then Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 Act are applicable. Option lies with the Muslim divorced women to seek remedy under either of the two laws or both laws. This is because the 1986 Act is not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC but in addition to the said provision.
iii) If Section 125 of the CrPC is also resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as per the definition under the 1986 Act, then any order passed under the provisions of 1986 Act shall be taken into consideration under Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC.
d) The 1986 Act could be resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as defined under the said Act, by filing an application thereunder which could be disposed of in accordance with the said enactment.”
25. Respondent No.2 Smt. Ayesha who is original applicant had filed maintenance petition on behalf of herself and her four minor children regarding whom she has admitted in her pleadings and evidence that Km. Alshifa was born out of first husband Abdul Hakeem and Master Awan was born of her wedlock with Buniyad Ali after she was alleged divorced by the revisionist. She has also stated that her daughter Km. Imayesha and Master Shayan were born out of her wedlock with revisionist. However, revisionist has denied fatherhood of any of the children of respondent No.2 and has stated that Km. Imayesha, Master Awan and Master Shayan all the three children were born out of her wedlock with Buniyad Ali alias Sikandar with whom she was having intimacy even during short period of her marriage with respondent No.2 in the year 2007.
26. The revisionist has filed some documents in support of his contention that applicant Km. Imayesha is daughter of Sikandar and Smt. Ayesha and she is not his biological daughter. In Aadhar card of Imayesha she is shown as daughter of Sikandar, resident of “behind Budh Bazar, Masjid, Pakbara, Thakurdwara, Moradabad” (UP), her date of birth is shown as 20.08.2011 therein. The address of revisionist Shameem Ahmad is shown as Kailasa Road, Pakbara, Moradabad every where on record. His parentage is shown as Abrar Hussain, whereas in maintenance petition, the applicant has herself stated that her second marriage was solemnized with Buniyad Ali son of Akbar. The applicant has no where established identity of said Sikandar who is shown as father of Km. Imayesha in her Aadhar Card and also in her application for issuance of ration card. In statement of Bank Account of Canara Bank dated 19.05.2023 with regard to account holder Smt. Ayesha, respondent No.2, she is shown as wife of Mohd. Sikandar, R/o Pakbara Budh Bazar NH574 behind Masjid Moradabad (UP) and name of nominee is shown as Mohd. Azeem. Even in her application for ration card her date of birth is shown as 02.02.1989, wife of Mohd. Sikandar, R/o house NH574 behind Budh Bazar Masjid Moradabad, this appears to be her parental address. The respondent No.2 has denied the genuineness of divorce deed (Talaqnama) propounded by the revisionist bearing dated 09.06.2007. On the other hand, the revisionist has denied genuineness of fresh Nikah Nama dated 12.03.2018 between Ayesha and Shameem Ahmad, by which she has claimed that after her short term marital relationship with Buniyad Ali, as a result of Halala Nikah she was divorced by him and she contracted remarriage with her earlier husband Shameem Ahmad on 22.03.2008. In this deed of marriage her father Likayat is shown as “since deceased”, whereas the evidence on record suggests that he was alive at that time. Inasmuch as, the first wife of revisionist Smt. Hazra filed an FIR against present respondent No.2 Ayesha and Maulana Mumtaj Alam who signed the divorce deed as Kazi vide Case Crime No.228 of 2023, in which chargesheet has been filed against them vide order dated 15.09.2024 after investigation under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC with allegation that they had forged the Nikah Nama dated 12.03.2018.
27. The applicant has denied the defence suggestion in her evidence that Sikandar is nick name of Buniyad Ali and has stated that this is wrong to say that Shameem Ahmad and Sikandar are two different persons. By this statement she has tried to impress that said Sikandar Ali the other name of revisionist Shameem Ahmad, but the witnesses produced by the revisionist namely DW-6 Krishna Pahal alias Deepu who is also witness of divorce deed dated 31.05.2007, DW-7 Ameen Kha another witness of divorce deed dated 31.05.2007, DW-8 Mohd. Rafi who is also witness of Talaqnama dated 31.05.2027 have stated in their evidence that Sikandar is the nick name of Buniyad Ali, whom the applicant Smt. Ayesha remarried after being divorced by the revisionist.
28. Parentage of Buniyad Ali and Shameem Ahmad both are different. Therefore, this indirect statement of the original applicant that Sikandar and Shameem Ahmad are same persons may not be accepted. The evidence appearing on record is indicative of the fact that Sikandar is the other name of Buniyad Ali, because Buniyad Ali has not been referred in any document, but applicant has accepted him as her short period husband during 2016-17 and she gave birth to a son with her relation with him. If according to the applicant Smt. Ayesha, her daughter Km. Imayesha born during subsistence of matrimonial relationship between her and revisionist in the year 2011, then why her parentage is shown as that of Sikandar instead of Shameem Ahmad in her Aadhar card. Inasmuch as the applicant in her application for ration card has shown herself as wife of Mohd. Sikandar and daughter of Liyakat Ali and Hafiz Bano. The parentage of her daughter Km. Imayesha is shown in that application as that of Sikandar. This also dose not appear natural that if a divorce had taken place between the parties in the year 2007, how they were living together in 2011 without remarriage. If this divorce deed was a sham document, in that case what was the occasion for respondent No.2 to have undergone Halala Nikah with Buniyad Ali Aka Sikandar in the year 2016, just for a period of one year after a long gap of nine years. She has not clarified her relationship with Sikandar whose name is appearing in various documents as her husband.
29. Learned trial court has failed to consider all these questions in the impugned judgment and order and adjudicate thereon on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment is suffering from factual and legal error and cannot be sustained. It also appears to be significant to observe that Sikandar aka Buniyad Ali whose name appears as husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondent No.3 Buniyad Ali is an important witness of the case who can through light on many important facts of the case, but he could not be examined by either of the parties, for reasons best known to them. Therefore, it is desirable that the trial court shall summon him as a court witness and examine him on questions raised above. The court may ask the parties to provide his current address.
30. With above, observations the impugned judgment and order is set-aside and matter is remitted to learned court below for decision afresh in the light of above observations, strictly in accordance with law and pass a fresh order on maintenance application filed by the respondent No.2 with utmost expedition. The revisionist shall pay Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent No.2 on monthly basis during the pendency of Maintenance Case No.447 of 2021 Smt. Ayesha and others Vs. Shameem Ahmad. The parties shall appear before the court below within fifteen days for necessary actions.
31. The revision stands allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 05.6.2025
Ashish/-