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

2015 Supreme(Ker) 5

High Court of Kerala
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Beena - Petitioner
Versus
B. Mohammed Khan @ B.M. Khan & Another - Respondents
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 92 of 2014
Decided On: 06-01-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R.T. Pradeep, P. Bijimon, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, G. Sudheer, Advocate, R2, N. Suresh, Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986 Section 3 Muslim Law - -"Dower"- Meaning- It is the right of the Muslim wife- Husband must gave the Mahr at the time of their marriage as demanded by the wife- Prompt dower- Deferred dower-

       Muslim husband agrees but not gave the Dower (Mehr) to his wife at the time of marriage, after two years they were divorced- Wife can claim dower after divorce - Wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband till she remarriage or her death. AIR 1933 Patna 281, relied.

       If there is any suit for dower , Court have to fix the dower by considering the status of the family, custom if any as customary in that family. In the absence of any proof, presumption is that to follow is one half of the prompt is and the other half deferred. AIR(35) 1948 Lahore 138, relied.

       

Judgment :-

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. Petitioner in M.C.No.66/2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The revision petitioner herein filed the petition under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The case of the revision petitioner in the petition was that she was born and brought up as a Christian and she had married earlier and it was dissolved and in that wedlock, there is a female child. While so, she had connection with the respondent and they decided to marry each other and so she converted to Islam and their marriage was solemnised on 17.02.2011 as per custom. At the time of marriage, respondent had agreed to give 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments as Mahr and Rs.20 lakhs as pocket money. But he had not kept up his promise. At the time of marriage, her parents had given 51 sovereigns of gold ornaments and after marriage, they were living together as husband and wife in different rented houses. She was provided with Rs.8000/- towards rent and Rs.7500/- for the salary of the domestic servant apart from providing amounts for maintenance. After six months of marriage, he started to harass her and it became miserable to live with him. He had misappropriated all her gold ornaments and sold the same and used for his personal use. He was a drunkard and chain smoker and he compelled her to have unnatural sex. When it was objected by her, he pronounced Talaq on 28.03.2013 and it was received by her 30.03.2013. Even after Talaq, he did not provide proper maintenance. He did not pay various amounts due to her. He is having owns assets worth Rs.200 Crores. He owns a star hotel by name Palm Shore Hotel (Pvt) Limited at Vizhinjam. He is also having Palm Land Restaurant near Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, two vegetable shops at Anayara, 38 cents of land at Kazhakuttom and 200 acres of garden land at Boothapandi in Tamil Nadu. He is having huge deposits worth more than millions of rupees in 7 Banks. He is getting crores of rupees as licence fee in respect of his Palm Shore Hotel (Pvt) Ltd., Vizhinjam. He had executed a Will in respect of 5.59 Ares of property in lieu of pocket money of Rs.20 lakhs agreed to be paid on 20.02.2011. Thereafter, he had sold the property and misappropriated the amount. She was compelled to sell a car belonging to her for Rs.1,29,000/- and the sale proceeds were utilised by the respondent for his purpose. She had sent a notice demanding to pay dower of 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs.2 lakhs agreed to be paid as Mahr and Rs.20 lakhs being the pocket money promised at the time of marriage and Rs.1,50,000/- being maintenance for 3 months during the period of Iddath at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month and also Rs.1 lakh per mensum for future maintenance and return 51 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of Rs.10,20,000/- and Rs.1,29,000/- being the sale proceeds of the car misappropriated by him and Rs.5 Crore being a reasonable and fair provision of maintenance. But he sent a reply with false allegations and he did not pay the amount or return the gold ornaments. So she was compelled to file the petition seeking the above reliefs.

3. Respondent filed counter contended as follows:-

He submitted that he was compelled to marry the petitioner. She was an employee in one of the business institution of the respondent and the petitioner married the respondent solely with an eye of his assets. At the time of marriage, petitioner was actually given 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments by the respondent and in the first month of the marriage itself, the petitioner obtained Rs.86,000/- from the respondent for the repair and maintenance of her house at Ernakulam. She obtained various amounts from him. Though the petitioner converted herself to Islam, she never practised Islam. The car was sold by the petitioner even before her marriage with the respondent. He had not utilised any money belo






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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