SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. Bajanthri, S. B. Pd. Singh, JJ.
Shams Tabrej, son of Atikur Rahman @ Javed - Appellant
Versus
Isarat Jahan, daughter of Sk. Mokhtar - Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No.392 of 2017
Decided On : 05-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Mahta Alam, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Avinash Raj, Advocate, Mr. Braj Kishor Mishra, Advocate

Divorce under Muslim Law necessitates strict adherence to established procedures; failure to substantiate claims of 'Talaq' renders such claims invalid.

Headnote:(A) Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Muslim Law - Section 308 - Divorce - Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition by Family Court for lack of evidence supporting claim of three-stage pronouncement of 'Talaq' - Court emphasized requirements for valid divorce under Muslim Law and absence of credible evidence - Appeal dismissed as meritless. (Paras 2, 10, 14, 18)

(B) Proper Procedure for 'Talaq' - Divorce must comply with established procedures; failure results in non-recognition of the divorce under law. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
Appellant claimed to have pronounced 'Talaq' thrice on 08.10.2007. Respondent contested, asserting she was never divorced. Initial marriage was on 12.01.2000, two children were born. Evidence was presented by both parties regarding their claims. Respondent maintained she was ready to reconcile.

Findings of Court:
The Family Court found the appellant did not adequately establish his claim, leading to the dismissal of his suit.

Issues: The key questions included the validity of the divorce claim, legal sufficiency of evidence presented, and the Family Court's handling of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the appellant's claim was unsubstantiated as per the law governing divorce in Islam; procedural requirements were not met. Therefore, the Family Court's decision was upheld.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. grounds for divorce under muslim law (Para 2 , 3)
2. respondent's claim of continuing marriage (Para 5)
3. testimony on marital conflict and divorce (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. trial court's dismissal of appeal (Para 9)
5. arguments from both parties (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. examination of validity of 'talaq' pronouncement (Para 13 , 14)
7. requirements of 'talaq' under mohammadan law (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
8. appeal dismissal and affirmation of trial court (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

S. B. PD. SINGH, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran at Bettiah in Title Suit No. 198 of 2007 filed under Section 308 of the MUSLIM LAW and under Sections 7(1)(A) of the Family Court’s Act for declaration of divorce since 08.10.2007 on the basis of pronouncement made by the appellant to the respondent, which was dismissed by the Family Court.

3. The case of the appellant as per petition filed before the Family Court is that the appellant-Shams Tabrej has filed a petition under Section 308 of the MUSLIM LAW and 7(1)(A) of Family Court's Act against the respondent- Isarat Jahan on 29.10.2007 stating therein that both the parties were married on 12.1.2000 and they started leading peaceful conjugal life and two sons were born out of their wedlock. After some time, the respondent changed herself as a quarrelsome lady and always used to stay at her parental house. The appellant is a poor person working as a Salesman at a shoe shop and that was the reason, the respondent used to stay at her parents’ house who were economically well. The appellant tried his best to pacify the matter, but all his efforts went in vein. Ultimately, the appellant filed a case before Darul Qaza, Bettiah for Bidagari of the respondent and Darul Qaza ordered the respondent to stay at her matrimonial house but after 15 days of stay at her Sasural, the respondent was taken back to her parental house by her brothers and since then, she is living at her parental house. The appellant had also filed Matrimonial Case No. 03 of2007 under Section 281 of the MUSLIM LAW but in spite of the direction of the Court below, the respondent went with her brothers to her parent’s house and disobeyed the Court's order. There are several criminal cases pending between the parties. Hence, in the light of compelling circumstances, the appellant decided to take divorce from the respondent and pronounced three times “Talaq” on 08.10.2007 in presence of some witnesses, which was irrevocable and final. Now the matrimonial relationship between the parties is not existing since 08.10.2007. The appellant has paid the entire amount of “Dain Mehar” and expenses of “Iddat” to the respondent. Hence, he prays to declare three times “Talaq” pronounced on 08.10.2007 as valid, legal and operative one.

4. In response to the summon/notice issued by the Court, respondent appeared and filed her reply/written statement.

5. In her written statement/reply, the respondent has stated that most of the facts and allegations stated in the aforesaid petition are false and baseless and the case is not maintainable in the eye of law or on the basis of facts. She is still legally married wife of the appellant and she was never divorced. She is still ready to lead peaceful conjugal life with the appellant, but it is the appellant who does not want to continue matrimonial relationship with the respondent. In Complaint Case No. 2948-C of 2007, the father of appellant introduced respondent as wife of Shams Tabrej (appellant) on 6.11.2008. This supports the statement of the respondent that she is still legally married wife of the appellant.

6. On the basis of the rival contentions of both the parties, following issues were framed in this case by the learned Trial Court :-

1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?

2. Whether the plaintiff-appellant has cause

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top