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

1979 Supreme(Gau) 32

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Baharul Islam, D.Pathak, JJ.
Must.Rukia Khatun -Appellant
Versus
Abdul Khalique Laskar -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1975
Decided On : 09-07-1979

Advocates Appeared:
A.M.Mazumdar, M.A.Laskar, S.A.Laskar

A divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, even if the divorce took place before the coming into operation of the Code, provided that the 'talaq' was not valid according to Islamic law.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 125 - MAINTENANCE - DIVORCED WIFE - ENTITLEMENT - VALIDITY OF TALAQ - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - RECONCILIATION - REASONABLE CAUSE - PAYMENT OF DOWER - EFFECT - QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE - DETERMINATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a divorced wife, filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking maintenance from her husband. The husband contested the application, claiming that he had divorced her before the coming into operation of the new Code and that he had paid the dower money to her.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the husband had failed to prove that there was a valid 'talaq' in accordance with Islamic law, as he had not shown that there was a reasonable cause for the divorce or that an attempt at reconciliation had been made. The court also held that the payment of the dower did not absolve the husband from his obligation to pay maintenance, as the amount paid was not sufficient to provide for the wife's maintenance.

Issues: 1. Whether the husband had validly divorced the wife according to Islamic law. 2. Whether the payment of the dower absolved the husband from his obligation to pay maintenance. 3. The quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the wife.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a valid 'talaq' under Islamic law requires a reasonable cause for the divorce and an attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his. 2. The court held that the payment of the dower does not absolve the husband from his obligation to pay maintenance, unless the amount paid is sufficient to provide for the wife's maintenance. 3. The court held that the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the wife should be determined by the trial court, taking into account the 'means' of the husband and the wife's independent income, if any.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application and made the rule absolute, remanding the case to the trial court for determination of the amount of maintenance to be paid to the wife. The court also directed the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month with effect from July 1, 1979, until the trial court passed an order for maintenance in accordance with law.

Islam, C.J.:-

This is an application under Section 401 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure and is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, ejecting an application for maintenance filed by the petitioner (wife) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter 'the new Code'). The material facts are these :

2. The petitioner's case is that she was married by the opposite party (husband) about 3 (three) years ago. They lived as husband and wife for about three months whereafter the husband abandoned and neglected her. She was not provided with any maintenance and was passing her days in penury. She prayed for maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month from the husband.

3. The opposite party filed a written statement and con­tested the petitioner's application. He admitted the marriage, but his plea was that he divorced the petitioner on 12.4.1972 by executing a talaqnama. He further pleaded that he paid the dower money to the petitioner.

4. The Magistrate found that petitioner had been divo­rced by the opposite party. He held that as the petitioner had been divorced before the coming into operation of the new Code, she was not entitled to maintenance and he rejected the application. Hence this application in revision.

5. This application came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court before whom it was conteded by the petitioner, relying on a decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 199 of 1977, disposed of on 31.3.78, that there has been no valid talaq, and, as such the petitioner was entitled to maintenance. The opposite party submitted before the Single Judge that the decision of the Single Judge in Criminal Revision No. 199/77 required re-consideration. Although the learned Single Judge concurred with the view expressed in Criminal Revision 199/77, he referred the matter to a Division Bench as substantial questions of law were involved in the case.

6. Section 125 of the new Code provides :

"125. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) * *

(b) * *

(c) * *

(d) * *

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of the wife......at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct;

* * * * * * * * *

(relevant provisions only)

"Wife" has been defined in Explanation (b). The defini­tion is in the following words :

"For the proposes of this Chapter (Chapter IX)

(b) 'Wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried.''

In the instant case the petitioner filed the application for maintenance on the footing that the marriage was subsisting and that she was the neglected wife of the opposite party, the opposite party having pleaded that she had been divorced.

7. The first point to be decided, therefore, is whether the opposite party divorced the petitioner. The equivalent of the word 'divorce' is 'talaq' in Muslim Law. What is valid 'talaq' in Muslim law was considered by one of us (Baharul Islam. J. as he then was) sitting singly in Criminal Revision No. 199/77 (supra). The word 'talaq' carries the literal significance of 'freeing' or 'the undoing of knot. 'Talaq' means divorce of a woman by her husband. Under the Muslim law marriage is a civil contract. Yet the rights and responsibilities consequent upon it are of such importance to the welfare of the society that a high degree of sanctity is attached to it. But inspite of the sacrcdness of the character of the marriagetic, Islam recognises the necessity in exceptional circumstances of keeping the way open for its dissolution.

There has been a good deal of misconception of the insti­tution of 'talaq' under the Muslim law. From the Holy Quran and the Hadis, it appears that though divorce was permitted, y



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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