Back
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Shihabudheen @ Mahin, Erattupetta – Appellant
Versus
Shybi – Respondent
If there was a dissolution of marriage under mubara'at whether a divorced wife is entitled to claim Mahr, maintenance during the Iddat period and fair and reasonable provision. This is the question to be settled in this petition.
2. There is no dispute on the factual matrix of the case. Petitioner and first respondent are Muslims and admittedly were husband and wife. Their marriage was on 30/5/2002. A child was born in that wed lock on 12/2/2003. The marriage was dissolved on 14/3/2004. First respondent filed M.C.21/2004 under Section 3(1) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming maintenance for the Iddat period, fair and reasonable provision, maintenance for a period of two years for the child, return of Mahr of 36 grams of gold and return of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments.
3. Petitioner resisted the claim contending that Rs.50,000/- which was received at the time of marriage and 36 grams of gold received as Mahr, were returned at the time of dissolution of the marriage. It was also contended that gold ornaments of the first respondent were with her at the time of dissolution of the marriage and therefor
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. The single case mentioned, Shihabudheen v. Shybi (2009 (4) KLT 96), is cited as relying on Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, but there is no indication within this excerpt that it has been overruled or criticized in subsequent rulings. Without additional information or subsequent case references explicitly stating that this case has been overruled or discredited, it cannot be classified as bad law based solely on the provided data.
[Followed]
No cases explicitly marked as "followed" are identified in the provided list. The mention of reliance on a legal text (Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law) suggests the case was based on authoritative legal principles, but this does not confirm it was followed in subsequent decisions.
[Distinguished or Cited]
The list does not contain language indicating that the case was distinguished from other cases or that it was cited as a precedent in a manner that would suggest it was either overruled or reaffirmed.
[Criticized, Questioned, or Rejected]
There are no indications in the provided excerpt that the case was criticized, questioned, or rejected in later rulings.
[Legal Treatment Pattern]
The only information available is that a learned Single Judge relied on this case and on Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law. This suggests that, at least in the context of this decision, the case was considered relevant and authoritative, but there is no explicit treatment pattern beyond reliance.
Since only one case is listed and there is no explicit treatment or subsequent judicial commentary provided, the treatment of this case remains uncertain. It is unclear whether it has been overruled, followed, criticized, or otherwise treated in later decisions because no such references are included in the provided list.
The lack of subsequent treatment indicators means that the overall status of the case remains ambiguous based solely on the provided information.
**Source :** X VS Y - Kerala
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
