IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ.
C.Abdul Aziz, S/O. C.Abu And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Chembukandy Saffiya, D/O.C.Veeran And Ors. – Respondents
RFA NO. 40 OF 2012 (I)
Decided On : 05-07-2022
Constitution of India - Article 141, Article 13, 14, 15 -Principle of estoppel and equity - Bar a mother from being guardian of her minor child's person and property - Prohibiting a Muslim mother from being guardian of her minor child's person and property-There can be no ratification of the sale of the immovable property of a Mohammedan minor by the so called de facto guardian, the mother. A de facto guardian is not recognized by Muslim law. She is like a rank outsider and any alienation by her is void. (Para 41)
Finding of the Court :
principle of estoppel needs to be applied in the instant case - Plaintiffs and defendants 13 and 14, accepting partition deed is seen to have executed the subsequent documents. After having executed the said release deeds they cannot now take a volte face and plead ignorance of the same. It is rather late in the day to contend that they are not bound by it. That being the position, the finding of the court below that the plaintiffs are not bound by Ext.B2 deed and that the plaint schedule property is available for partition, is liable to be reversed.
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
C.S.Sudha, J.
Does the Qur'an or Hadith specifically prohibit or bar a mother from being guardian of her minor child's person and property? Article 13 of the Constitution says laws cannot be inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. If that be so, will not prohibiting a Muslim mother from being guardian of her minor child's person and property, be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, asks/queries Sri. Firoz K.M, the learned counsel for the appellants. If it is violative, can the court interfere to set right the injustice, if any, caused? According to the learned counsel, the answer to the first question is an emphatic no and to the remaining part, in the affirmative. Let us examine whether the arguments advanced are tenable or sustainable in the light of the settled position that a Muslim mother cannot be the guardian of her minor child's person or property except movable property. We propose to consider the issues involved herein strictly going by the precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court being the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
2. Extensive arguments have been advanced by either side by referring to various verses in the Qur'an, Hadith, several decisions of the Privy Council, Apex court, this court and other High Courts, in support of their respective arguments. We heard Sri.K.M.Firoz, the learned counsel for the first appellant; Sri.N.M.Madhu, the learned counsel for appellants 2 to 9; Ms.Namitha V, the learned counsel for first and second respondents and Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, the learned counsel for sixth and seventh respondents. In the light of the important questions of law raised, Advocate Sri.K.I. Mayankutty Mather was appointed as the Amicus curiae to assist us in the matter. The learned Amicus has also made extensive submissions on the point, more or less supporting the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. Before we go into the facts of this case and the impugned judgment, we will first refer to the various arguments advanced relating to the aforesaid aspects.
3. On behalf of the appellants, reference has been made to the following verses-
(ii) Hadith No. 105 narrated by Abu Huraira, a companion of Prophet Mohamed and recorded by Sahih Al-Bukhari-“I heard Allah's Apostle saying, “Amongst all those women who ride camels (i.e., Arabs), the ladies of Quraish are the best. They are merciful and kind to their off-spring and the best guardians of their husbands' properties.' Abu Huraira added,” Mary the daughter of Imran never rode a camel.”
(iii) Hadith 283 in Riyad as-Salihin reads: Ibn Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) reported: The Prophet (PBUH) Said, “All of you are guardians and are responsible for your subjects. The ruler is a guardian of his subjects, the man is a guardian of his family, the woman is a guardian and is responsible for her husband's house and his offspring; and so all of you are guardians and are responsible for your subjects.” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]
3.1. Referring to the aforesaid Hadiths, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that, a woman has in fact been recognized as guardian of her husband's house as well as his wards. These Hadiths were never considered in any of the judgments which have held that the mother cannot be the guardian of her minor child. Reference was also made to the Hedaya or Guide, a commentary on the Mussulman laws by Charles Hamilton, the relevant portion of which reads:
B.Shama Rao vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry
C.Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil
Hasan Khani Rawther vs. Muhammed Rawther
John Vallamattom v. Union of India
Meethiyan Sidhiqu vs. Muhammed Kunju Pareeth Kutty
Mohd. Amin v. Vakil Ahmad: AIR 1952 SC 358
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India: (1995) 3 SCC 635
Shayara Bano v. Union of India
State of Karnataka v. Appu Balu Ingale: AIR 1993 SC 1126
Syed Shah Gulam Ghouse Mohiuddin v. Syed Shah Ahmad Mohiuddin Kamisul Qadri: AIR 1971 SC 2184
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.