BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)
B. N. DESHMUKH, J.
Shahadabi M. Isak, Petitioner
Versus
Abdul Ajij Abdul Latif and others, Respondents.
Cri. Writ Petn. No. 176 of 1991
Decided on : 25-1-1996.
MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON DIVORCE) ACT, 1986 - SECTION 3 - DIVORCE - TALAQ - KHULA - MUBARAT - DISTINCTION - EFFECT OF KABULIYANAMA - RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHTS - MAINTENANCE - IDDAT PERIOD.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, seeking Mehar amount, maintenance during Iddat period, and return of articles received by the husband at the time of marriage. The trial court allowed the application and directed the husband to pay the amounts and return the articles. However, the Sessions Court set aside the trial court's order, holding that the divorce was obtained by mutual consent through a Kabuliyatnama and that the wife had relinquished her rights.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the divorce in the present case was not obtained by mutual consent through a Kabuliyatnama, but was given by the husband in the form of Talaq. The Court found that the Kabuliyatnama was executed after the Talaq was given and that it was ineffective to take away the wife's rights to Mehar and maintenance.
Issues: 1. Whether the divorce was obtained by mutual consent through a Kabuliyatnama or was given by the husband in the form of Talaq. 2. Whether the Kabuliyatnama was effective to take away the wife's rights to Mehar and maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the divorce was given by the husband in the form of Talaq, as evidenced by the recitals in the Kabuliyatnama and the fact that the Talaq was given in the presence of witnesses in the Court prior to the execution of the Kabuliyatnama. 2. The Court held that the Kabuliyatnama was ineffective to take away the wife's rights to Mehar and maintenance, as the divorce was not obtained by mutual consent and the Kabuliyatnama was executed after the Talaq was given.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and restored the order of the trial court, with the modification that the wife was not entitled to any amount towards future maintenance.
2. The order passed by the learned trial Judge was challenged in Criminal Revision Application before the learned Sessions Judge at Jalgaon.
3. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow Revision filed by the husband and the order passed by the learned trial Judge against the husband was set aside.
4. The present petitioner-wife has, therefore, filed this Criminal Writ Petition, challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
5. Shri Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the lower Court was correct in granting the Mehar amount and also further amounts to the petitioner-wife. According to him, the learned Sessions Judge has misdirected himself in reading the recitals of the so called Kabuliyat a deed of divorce (Exh. 42). He has contended that after the husband gave Talaq, (Exh. 42) was obtained from the wife. According to him, the learned Sessions Judge considered the Kabuliyat (a deed of divorce)/Exh. 42 as a document by which the divorce was obtained by the parties.
6. Shri Mohammed Mustaffa Ahmed Momin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the contrary, contended that Kabuliyat (Exh. 42) is a peculiar mode of obtaining divorce under the provisions of the Mahomedan Law. According to him, by this Kabuliyat (Exh. 42) dated 12-8-1976, the dissolution of marriage has been given an effect to by the parties, by agreement. Such an agreement is lawful under the provisions of Mohomedan Law as it provides for a dissolution of marriage by agreement in the form of 'Khula' or 'Mubarat'. Section 319, Mulla's Principles of Mohomedan Law (Eighteenth Edition) by Hidayatullah, provides for divorce by Khula and Mubarat. Sub-Section (1) of the said Section provides that a marriage may be dissolved not only by Talaq, which is the arbitrary act of the husband, but also by agreement between the husband and the wife. A dissolution of marriage by agreement may take form of Khula or Mubarat. Sub-Section (2) provides that a divorce by Khula is a divorce with the consent, and at the instance of the wife, in which she gives or agrees to give a consideration to the husband for her release from the marriage tie. In such a case the terms of the bargain are matters of arrangement between the husband and wife, and the wife may, as the consideration, release her dyn-mahr (dower) and other rights, or make any other agreement for the benefit of the husband. Failure on the part of the wife to pay the consideration for the divorce does not invalidate the divorce, though the husband may sue the wife for it.
7. A Khula divorce is effected by an offer from the wife to compensate the husband if he releases her from his marital rights, and acceptance by the husband of the offer. Once the offer is accepted, it operates as a single irrevocable divorce (talak-i-bain), and its operation is not postponed until execution of the Khulanama (deed of Khula). Sub-Section (3) deals with Mubarat. A mubarat divorce like Khula, is a dissolution of marriage by agreement, but there is a different between the origin of the two. When the aversion is on the side of the wife, and she desires a separation, the transaction is called Khula. When the aversion is mutual, and both the sides desires a s
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.