Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B.PARDIWALA, VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI, JJ.
Tarif Rashidbhai Qureshi – Appellant
Versus
Asmabanu d/o Alimohmmad Idarbhai Qureshi and w/o Tarif Rashidbhai Qureshi – Respondent
R/First Appeal No. 2012 of 2019 With Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2019
Decided on : 19-03-2020
Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 403, 406 and 420 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 125 - Appeal is at instance of original defendant and is directed against judgment and decree for divorce - For sake of convenience appellant shall be referred to as original defendant and respondent shall be referred to as original plaintiff got married with defendant on accordance with Muslim rites and customs - In wedlock plaintiff conceived but unfortunately as alleged on account of physical cruelty at end of defendant and his family members plaintiff gave birth to a still born child - Appears from materials on record that defendant started harassing plaintiff soon after marriage - It appears that an FIR was also lodged by plaintiff for offence punishable Indian Penal Code - As plaintiff was unable to continue with marriage on account of incessant harassment left her matrimonial home and went back to her parental home - Plaintiff also preferred an application being Criminal Application in Family Court Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance - Held, Court When the Hindu Code Bill was being debated in Parliament conservative Hindus raised a plausible plea that if a Civil Code was intended to be evolved should be made applicable to all communities in India main object in raising this plea was not so much to make the Code applicable to the Muslim community as to retard and if possible to defeat Hindu Code itself advocates of Hindu Code wanted to take first step in right direction - They realized that to bring Muslim community within purview of Civil Code was impractical at that time having regard to the fact that the public opinion in Muslim community had not been adequately educated in that behalf - Approach adopted by reformers in confining Code to Hindu community as a first step brings out another feature of Secularism and that is that in establishing its philosophy in social life of country adopts a pragmatic approach - Appeal dismissed (Para 53).
Facts of the Case:
Plaintiff got married with the defendant on 13th June, 2009 in accordance with the Muslim rites and customs. In the wedlock, the plaintiff conceived, but unfortunately, as alleged on account of physical cruelty at the end of the defendant and his family members, the plaintiff gave birth to a still born child. It appears from the materials on record that the defendant started harassing the plaintiff soon after the marriage. It appears that an FIR was also lodged by the plaintiff for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
Court When the Hindu Code Bill was being debated in Parliament conservative Hindus raised a plausible plea that if a Civil Code was intended to be evolved should be made applicable to all communities in India main object in raising this plea was not so much to make the Code applicable to the Muslim community as to retard and if possible to defeat Hindu Code itself advocates of Hindu Code wanted to take first step in right direction - They realized that to bring Muslim community within purview of Civil Code was impractical at that time having regard to the fact that the public opinion in Muslim community had not been adequately educated in that behalf - Approach adopted by reformers in confining Code to Hindu community as a first step brings out another feature of Secularism and that is that in establishing its philosophy in social life of country adopts a pragmatic approach.
Result: Appeal dismissed
Statutes Discussed
No relevant statutes found in the judgment text.
Case Laws Discussed
No relevant case laws found in the judgment text.
Ratio Decidendi
No relevant ratio decidendi found in the judgment text.
Court Observations
No relevant court observations found in the judgment text.
Final Conclusion
No relevant final conclusion found in the judgment text.
Specific questions/aspects raised by the legal query: Does the duration of marriage (specifically 15 years) affect a wife's entitlement to maintenance, such that she is not entitled after 15 years?
The judgment text primarily addresses a Muslim wife's right to divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, and her entitlement to lump sum permanent maintenance/alimony under Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, in a case where the marriage lasted approximately 1 year before breakdown (married 13-06-2009, suit filed ~2017). The Family Court awarded Rs.10,00,000 as lifetime lump sum maintenance, and the High Court upheld this on appeal.
Relevant passages considered but excluded for weak/tangential relevance: - (!) : Mentions "Duration of marriage – marriages that lasted for more than 10 years are entitled to a lifetime alimony." (Somewhat related as it discusses duration generally, but supports longer marriages entitling wife to maintenance, directly contradicting the query's proposition; not specific to 15 years or denial of maintenance.) - Marriage facts (!) , (!) : ~1-year effective duration before separation; court still awarded maintenance (contradicts query but on short marriage, not 15 years).
All categories excluded as no findings directly or substantially address whether a wife loses maintenance entitlement after 15 years of marriage. The judgment does not discuss or apply any principle limiting maintenance based on marriage duration of 15 years (or any specific long duration); instead, it affirms maintenance rights without reference to time limits tied to marriage length. The query's assertion finds no support or direct refutation in the text specific to 15 years.
Final included findings: None across categories.
JUDGMENT :
J.B.PARDIWALA, J.
1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short “the Act, 1984”) is at the instance of the original defendant (husband) and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad dated 10th January, 2019 in the Family Suit No.257 of 2017 instituted by the respondent herein original plaintiff (wife) for a decree of divorce under the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (for short “the Act, 1939”).
2. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, may be summarized as under;
2.1 For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein shall be referred to as the original defendant and the respondent herein shall be referred to as the original plaintiff.
2.2 The plaintiff got married with the defendant on 13th June, 2009 in accordance with the Muslim rites and customs. In the wedlock, the plaintiff conceived, but unfortunately, as alleged on account of physical cruelty at the end of the defendant and his family members, the plaintiff gave birth to a still born child.
2.3 It appears from the materials on record that the defendant started harassing the plaintiff soon after the marriage. It appears that an FIR was also lodged by the plaintiff for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. As the plaintiff was unable to continue with the marriage on account of incessant harassment, she left her matrimonial home and went back to her parental home. The plaintiff also preferred an application being the Criminal Misc. Application No.870 of 2011 in the Family Court at Ahmedabad under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance. The Family Court passed an order awarding Rs.2000/- per month towards the maintenance. However, it appears that the defendant failed to comply with the order passed by the Family Court for maintenance. Later, an application was filed being the Criminal Misc. Application No.56 of 2011 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In those proceedings also, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad passed an order of maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month. However, the defendant ignored the same. Later, a private complaint was lodged by the plaintiff in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.4 Ultimately, the plaintiff instituted the Family Suit No.257 of 2017 for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and for appropriate permanent alimony.
2.5 It appears that the plaintiff preferred an application Exh.5 in the Family Suit No.257 of 2017 for interim alimony. The Family Court passed an order directing the defendant to pay Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff towards the interim alimony. This order of interim alimony passed by the Family Court was challenged by the defendant by filing the Special Civil Application No.14762 of 2017. The Special Civil Application No.14762 of 2017 ultimately came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 25th July, 2018. The order of interim alimony passed by the Family Court in favour of the plaintiff was quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge of this Court observed as under;
4.1 Surprisingly, the l
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
