A divorced Muslim woman, even after Khula, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. until she re-marries. Admission of signature on a Khula deed, without proof of misrepresentation, conclusively establishes valid divorce. A father has a continuing statutory obligation to maintain his minor child. Suppression of income by the husband permits the Court to accept the wife’s version regarding earnings. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence when the maintenance order is legal, reasoned, and just.

advocatemmmohan

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125 — Minor child — Father’s obligation

A minor daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father irrespective of marital disputes between the parents, and such obligation is statutory and absolute.
(Para 7)

---

Muslim Law — Khula — Validity

Where the husband admits his signature on a Khula document and fails to adduce acceptable evidence to show that it was obtained by misrepresentation, the divorce by Khula is valid and binding.
(Para 4)

---

Evidence — Plea of misrepresentation — Burden of proof

A bald plea that signature was obtained under the impression of compromise, without supporting evidence, cannot be accepted.
(Para 4)

---

Maintenance — Assessment of income — Suppression by husband

When the husband fails to disclose or prove his actual income despite being employed, the Court is justified in accepting the wife’s version regarding his earnings.
(Para 8)

---

Maintenance — Quantum — Discretion of Family Court

Grant of Rs.3,000/- per month each to the divorced wife and minor child was held to be reasonable and did not warrant interference in revision.
(Paras 8–9)

---

Criminal Revision — Scope

In the absence of legal infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error, an order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not warrant interference in revision.
(Para 9)

---

ANALYSIS (PARA-WISE SYNTHESIS)

1. Marital relationship and divorce (Paras 2–4)
   The marriage and birth of the child were admitted. The Court rejected the husband’s plea of ignorance regarding Khula, holding that admission of signature without proof of fraud establishes valid divorce.

2. Entitlement of divorced Muslim woman (Paras 5–6)
   Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court reaffirmed that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. until re-marriage.

3. Right of minor child (Para 7)
   The obligation of the father to maintain his minor daughter was held unquestionable.

4. Determination of income and means (Para 8)
   The husband’s failure to produce salary particulars justified drawing adverse inference and accepting the wife’s claim regarding income.

5. Quantum and revisional restraint (Para 9)
   The Family Court’s discretion in fixing maintenance was upheld, as no illegality or perversity was found.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A divorced Muslim woman, even after Khula, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. until she re-marries.

2. Admission of signature on a Khula deed, without proof of misrepresentation, conclusively establishes valid divorce.

3. A father has a continuing statutory obligation to maintain his minor child.

4. Suppression of income by the husband permits the Court to accept the wife’s version regarding earnings.

5. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence when the maintenance order is legal, reasoned, and just.

Abolition of hereditary trusteeship — Section 16 — Effect Abolition of hereditary trusteeship under Section 16 does not obliterate the statutory concept of founder or member of the founder family under Section 17, nor does it nullify observance of established usage, custom and wishes of the founder recognised earlier by competent authority. (Paras 72–76, 80–83)

advocatemmmohan

A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — Section 17 — Founder family — Status and locus standi

Where the petitioner was already recognised as a member of the founder family and was holding office as Chairman/Trustee under subsisting Government Orders which were neither cancelled nor superseded, he continues to have locus standi to challenge subsequent Government Orders affecting such status.
(Paras 46–55, 58–59, 69–71, 92–95)

---

Endowments Register — Section 38 of Act 17 of 1966 / Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 — Binding effect

Entries in the Endowments Register recognising the founder and the line of succession continue to operate by virtue of Section 155(2)(a) of Act 30 of 1987 until modified, cancelled or superseded in accordance with law.
(Paras 57–59, 65–69)

---

Abolition of hereditary trusteeship — Section 16 — Effect

Abolition of hereditary trusteeship under Section 16 does not obliterate the statutory concept of founder or member of the founder family under Section 17, nor does it nullify observance of established usage, custom and wishes of the founder recognised earlier by competent authority.
(Paras 72–76, 80–83)

---

Section 17 — Explanation II — Agnatic line of succession — Order of preference

Explanation II to Section 17(1) mandates recognition of members of the founder family in agnatic line of succession, giving preference to children over grandchildren; recognition arises only when vacancy occurs and plurality of founder family members is not contemplated when a recognised member is already in office.
(Paras 77–79, 105–109)

---

Appointment of trustees — Mandatory procedure — Section 17(3) and Rules, 1987

Recognition of founder family members and appointment as trustees must follow the mandatory procedure of calling for applications, verification of antecedents and scrutiny under Section 17(3) and the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987; deviation vitiates the appointment.
(Paras 110–114)

---

Chairman of Trust Board — Rotation — No statutory sanction

Appointment or replacement of Chairman on a “rotation basis” is not contemplated under Act 30 of 1987; invocation of a concept omitted from the present Act amounts to impermissible exercise of power.
(Paras 118–123)

---

Removal / replacement of Chairman — Natural justice

Where a serving Chairman/Trustee from the founder family is replaced without notice and opportunity of hearing, such action violates principles of natural justice and causes prejudice.
(Paras 126–131)

---

Hindu Succession Act — Inapplicability

Reference to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for recognising founder family members or appointing trustees under Act 30 of 1987 is misconceived; trusteeship is not coparcenary property.
(Paras 98–104)

---

Judicial review — Colourable exercise of power

Government Orders issued to accommodate a particular individual, ignoring statutory provisions, procedure, usage and without valid reasons, constitute colourable exercise of power, arbitrariness and abuse of authority, warranting interference under Article 226.
(Paras 143–144)

---

Alternative remedy — Section 87 — No bar

Availability of remedy before Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 does not bar writ jurisdiction where impugned Government Orders suffer from patent illegality, arbitrariness and violation of natural justice.
(Paras 145–149)

---

Relief — Restoration of prior status

Setting aside illegal Government Orders revives and restores earlier valid Government Orders recognising and appointing the petitioner as Chairman/Trustee of the Temple Trust and Chairman of MANSAS Trust.
(Paras 152–154)

---

ANALYSIS (PARA-WISE SYNTHESIS)

1. Status and locus of petitioner (Paras 46–55, 92–95)
   The Court found that the petitioner was continuously recognised as a founder family member and Chairman under valid, subsisting G.Os., conferring unquestionable locus standi.

2. Effect of abolition of hereditary trusteeship (Paras 72–83)
   Section 16 abolishes hereditary trusteeship prospectively but does not extinguish the statutory recognition of founder family members under Section 17.

3. Statutory scheme of Sections 15, 17 and 22 (Paras 77–79, 105–109)
   Appointment arises only upon vacancy; Explanation II mandates order of preference in agnatic line; plurality of founder family members is impermissible.

4. Procedural illegality (Paras 110–114)
   Mandatory procedure for appointment and recognition was wholly bypassed, rendering the impugned G.Os. void.

5. Rotation without statutory backing (Paras 118–123)
   Rotation, omitted from Act 30 of 1987, cannot be reintroduced by executive action.

6. Violation of natural justice (Paras 126–131)
   Removal of the petitioner without notice or hearing was illegal and prejudicial.

7. Misplaced reliance on Hindu Succession Act (Paras 98–104)
   Trusteeship was erroneously equated with coparcenary property.

8. Colourable exercise and arbitrariness (Paras 143–144)
   The Court concluded that the impugned G.Os. were issued only to accommodate respondent No.4.

9. Maintainability of writ petitions (Paras 145–149)
   Given the patent illegality, writ jurisdiction was rightly invoked.

10. Final relief (Paras 152–154)
    All impugned G.Os. were set aside; petitioner’s prior appointments were restored; W.P. No.6857 of 2020 was dismissed.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Recognition as a founder family member under Section 17 of Act 30 of 1987, once validly granted and not superseded, continues to confer locus and statutory protection.

2. Abolition of hereditary trusteeship does not nullify observance of founder’s wishes, usage and custom recognised under the Endowments law.

3. Recognition of founder family members and appointment of trustees must strictly follow the procedure prescribed under Section 17(3) and the Rules; deviation renders the action void.

4. Appointment or replacement of Chairman/Trustee on a “rotation basis” has no sanction under Act 30 of 1987.

5. Replacement of a serving Chairman/Trustee without notice and hearing violates principles of natural justice.

6. Trusteeship under the Endowments Act is not governed by the Hindu Succession Act; reliance on Section 6 thereof is legally untenable.

7. Government Orders issued to favour a particular individual, ignoring statutory mandates, amount to colourable exercise of power and are liable to be quashed under Article 226.

Charitable & Religious Endowments — Founder family — Status — Recognition Where the petitioner was already recognised and declared as a member of the founder family under valid Government Orders, such status continues unless the earlier orders are modified, cancelled or superseded in accordance with law, and the petitioner has locus standi to challenge subsequent Government Orders affecting such status. (Paras 46–55, 58–59, 69–71, 92–95)

advocatemmmohan

Charitable & Religious Endowments — Founder family — Status — Recognition

Where the petitioner was already recognised and declared as a member of the founder family under valid Government Orders, such status continues unless the earlier orders are modified, cancelled or superseded in accordance with law, and the petitioner has locus standi to challenge subsequent Government Orders affecting such status.
(Paras 46–55, 58–59, 69–71, 92–95)

---

A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — Section 17 — Founder family — Order of preference

Explanation II to Section 17(1) mandates recognition of members of the founder family in agnatic line of succession, giving preference to children over grandchildren, and such recognition arises only upon vacancy; plurality of founder family members is not contemplated when a recognised founder family member is already in office.
(Paras 77–79, 89–91, 105–109)

---

Endowments Law — Abolition of hereditary trusteeship — Effect

Abolition of hereditary trusteeship under Section 16 of Act 30 of 1987 does not obliterate the concept of founder or member of founder family under Section 17, nor does it negate observance of established usage, custom and wishes of the founder recognised earlier by competent authority.
(Paras 72–76, 80–83)

---

Endowments Register — Section 38 of Act 17 of 1966 / Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987

Entries in the Endowments Register recognising founder and succession remain operative and binding under Section 155(2)(a) of Act 30 of 1987 until modified, cancelled or superseded in accordance with law.
(Paras 57–59, 65–69)

---

Appointment of Trustees — Mandatory procedure

Recognition of founder family members and appointment as trustees must strictly comply with Section 17(3) of Act 30 of 1987 and the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987; failure to call for applications, verify antecedents and follow prescribed procedure vitiates the appointment.
(Paras 110–114)

---

Endowments Law — Rotation — No statutory sanction

Appointment of Chairman/Trustee on “rotation basis” is not contemplated under Act 30 of 1987; invocation of a concept omitted from the present Act amounts to an impermissible and illegal exercise of power.
(Paras 118–123)

---

Natural Justice — Removal / replacement of Chairman

Where a person is holding office as Chairman/Trustee by virtue of recognition as a founder family member, replacement without notice and opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and causes prejudice.
(Paras 126–131)

---

Hindu Succession Act — Inapplicability

Reference to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in recognising founder family members or appointing trustees under Act 30 of 1987 is misconceived and legally untenable, as trusteeship is not coparcenary property.
(Paras 98–104)

---

Judicial Review — Colourable exercise of power

Government Orders issued to accommodate a particular individual, ignoring statutory provisions, procedure, usage, and without reasons, constitute colourable exercise of power, arbitrariness and abuse of authority, warranting interference under Article 226.
(Paras 143–144)

---

Alternative Remedy — Section 87 — No bar

Existence of an alternative remedy under Section 87 of Act 30 of 1987 does not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction where impugned Government Orders suffer from patent illegality, arbitrariness and violation of natural justice.
(Paras 145–149)

---

Relief — Restoration of status

Setting aside illegal Government Orders revives and restores earlier valid Government Orders recognising and appointing the petitioner as Chairman/Trustee of the Temple Trust and Chairman of MANSAS Trust.
(Paras 152–154)

---

ANALYSIS (PARA-WISE SYNTHESIS)

1. Status and locus of petitioner (Paras 46–55, 92–95)
   The Court found that the petitioner was continuously recognised as a founder family member and Chairman under subsisting Government Orders, never cancelled or superseded, thereby conferring unquestionable locus standi.

2. Founder family concept post-abolition (Paras 72–83)
   While hereditary trusteeship stands abolished, the statutory recognition of founder or founder family member under Section 17 survives, requiring adherence to usage, custom and founder’s wishes.

3. Statutory scheme under Sections 15, 17 and 22 (Paras 77–79, 105–109)
   Appointment arises only upon vacancy; recognition of multiple founder family members when a recognised member is already in office is impermissible.

4. Procedural illegality (Paras 110–114)
   The mandatory procedure for appointment of trustees was wholly bypassed, rendering the impugned G.Os. void.

5. Rotation and removal without cause (Paras 118–123)
   Rotation has no statutory basis; removal of the petitioner without invoking Section 22 grounds was illegal.

6. Violation of natural justice (Paras 126–131)
   Absence of notice and hearing vitiated the entire exercise.

7. Misuse of Hindu Succession Act (Paras 98–104)
   Trusteeship was wrongly equated to property rights under succession law.

8. Colourable exercise and arbitrariness (Paras 143–144)
   The Court concluded that the G.Os. were issued only to accommodate Respondent No.4.

9. Maintainability of writ petitions (Paras 145–149)
   Given the illegality and arbitrariness, writ jurisdiction was properly invoked.

10. Final relief (Paras 152–154)
    All impugned G.Os. were set aside; petitioner’s earlier appointments were restored; the writ by Respondent No.6 was dismissed.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Recognition as a founder family member under Section 17 of the A.P. Act 30 of 1987, once validly granted and not superseded, continues to confer locus and statutory protection.

2. Abolition of hereditary trusteeship does not negate observance of founder’s wishes, usage and custom recognised under the Endowments law.

3. Recognition of founder family members and appointment of trustees must strictly follow the procedure prescribed under Section 17(3) and the Rules; deviation renders the action void.

4. Appointment or replacement of a Chairman/Trustee on a “rotation basis” has no sanction under Act 30 of 1987 and is illegal.

5. Replacement of a serving Chairman/Trustee without notice and hearing violates natural justice and vitiates the action.

6. Trusteeship under the Endowments Act is not governed by the Hindu Succession Act; reliance on Section 6 thereof is legally untenable.

7. Government Orders issued to favour a particular individual, ignoring statutory mandates, amount to colourable exercise of power and are liable to be quashed under Article 226.