Important points:
Practice of Triple Talaq is not protected by Art.25 of the Constitution of India and it is not an essential religious practice. It is also held that Triple Talaq is against the basic tenets of Quran and violates the Shariat. In the light of the aforesaid finding, the Triple Talaq pronounced by the respondent/husband is not valid in accordance with law. To that extent, the judgment requires to be set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Shaffique, J.

Mat.Appeal No.437/11 is filed by the respondent/wife challenging judgment dated 7/4/2011 passed in OP No. 620/2008 and Mat.Appeal No.631/11 is filed by the petitioner/wife challenging judgment in OP No.100/2007.

2. OP No.100/2007 was dismissed and OP No.620/2008 was allowed by directing the respondent/wife to hand over the vacant possession of the petition-schedule property to the petitioner/husband within a period of three months from the date of judgment. It is challenging the common judgment passed in the original petitions, these appeals have been filed.

3. The short facts of the case are as under and the parties are described as shown in OP No.100/2007 unless otherwise stated:-

The petitioner/wife married the respondent/husband on 10/10/1971 as per the religious custom prevailing among the Muslim community. After the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife at the petitioner's house and matrimonial home. Three children were born in the wedlock. A new residential building was constructed at Haji Motta in the year 1982 with the sale consideration of an extent of 30 cents of property belonging to the petitioner. On completion of the construction of the building, the petitioner, first respondent/husband and their children shifted to the new residence and they lived there till 2002. The first respondent retired from Military service in the year 1995. The relationship between the petitioner and first respondent was cordial till May 2004. The respondent started construction of another house at Mangattuparamba, the petition schedule item No.2 property in the year 2000. The respondent had availed a loan of Rs.1 lakh from the Bank by mortgaging the property exclusively belonging to the petitioner. The construction of the house was completed in the year 2002 and house warming ceremony was conducted on 10/1/2003. The petitioner had paid the loan amount availed by the first respondent from the Bank. During the house warming ceremony, the first respondent openly declared in the presence of the family members of the petitioner as well as the first respondent that he is going to gift item No.2 property to the petitioner and her children and he handed over the key of the house to the petitioner. Since then, the petitioner is residing in the said house. The first respondent also resided with her in the newly constructed house. The first respondent sold the house and property situated at Haji Motta to 2nd the respondent as per sale deed No.1587/2004 of SRO Kalliasseri without the consent of the petitioner and children. When petitioner enquired about the same, the first respondent became furious and he left the house. The respondent appropriated the entire sale consideration of the property. Even though the petitioner and her children persuaded the respondent to reside with them, the respondent refused to do so. It is reliably learnt that respondent contracted another marriage and he is residing at Mattannur along with his new wife. The respondent is attempting to forcibly evict her from Item No.2 property to accommodate his second wife. The allegation of the first respondent that he pronounced talaq on 11/7/2008 is incorrect. In the order passed in MC No.370/2005, there was a finding by this Court that the talaq was not in accordance with Mohammedan law and that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and since she is the wife of the first respondent, she has every right to reside in item no.2 property. The petitioner has no house of her own and if she is evicted from the house, she will be put to serious hardship. The first respondent filed OP No.113/2005 before this Court for recovery of possession of item No.2 property. Subsequently, the OP was abandoned by the petitioner without obtaining leave of the Court. The respondent is taking hasty steps to evict the petitioner from the petition schedule property. Hence, she sought for a decree restraining the respondents permanently from evicting